Lords Sitting of 12 March 1891

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Lord Teignmouth—Petition of Sir Charles John Shore, Baron Teignmouth in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND REPEAL BILL [H.L.]—(No. 52)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I believe it is competent to Members of this House to bring questions of privilege before your Lordships at any time. I wish to complain of a misreport of a speech of mine on this very intricate subject of the Local Government Acts of England and Scotland Repeal Bill. I stated that the Prime Minister had given his opinion that the majority of the House was in favour of this measure, and I stated at the same time that I thought his Lordship was misinformed. It makes a very great difference those words being left out, and I conceive it is the duty of the reporter of this House to send the speeches early enough to those who have uttered them to enable speeches to be corrected. Another object of this interruption, if I may call it so, is this: I wish to know if the Clerk of the House has any right to refuse notice of any question that a Peer chooses to place before him? In my opinion, it is the duty of the Clerk to put a notice, if requested, upon the Paper, and if that notice be informal, the House itself can correct the Mover of it. I mention this particularly in relation to the Duration of Speeches in Parliament Bill. That Bill was sent to the printer, with a request that a proof might be sent to me. It was altered very materially, but no proof
  722
  was sent to me, and, to my surprise found the Bill in the Paper without my authorisation. Certainly the noble Marquess at the head of the Government postponed it for 10 months, which is really worse than a final rejection. I believe the noble Marquess wishes to do that which is fair, and I trust when I make the Motion to-morrow that that Order may be rescinded that the House in general will see the justice of my claim, and will allow the Bill to reappear in the Paper.
  Order discharged.

CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]-(No. 45.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I have an Amendment on this clause. I only suggest to the most rev. Prelate that a few words should be omitted which are evidently surplusage. They may have had some meaning as the Bill was originally drawn; that I do not remember, but as it stands the 2nd clause stands thus, omitting the early part of it. After referring to cases where clergymen have been convicted, it goes on to say—
  "The following consequence shall follow that is to say, the ecclesiastical preferment held by such clergyman shall become vacant."
  It is perfectly obvious that to provide that "the following consequence shall follow" is absolute nonsense, and the Bill would, I think, be a great deal better without those words.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I would ask the noble Lord whether he does not think these words still serve a purpose with regard to the 2nd subsection? If the words are omitted, as the noble Lord proposes, the 2nd subsection would want considerable alteration.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I must say I doubt that, because the words "Provided that if," and so on, in the subsection are only interpolated to qualify the 1st section. Let us leave that out for a moment. It says that at the time of the conviction becoming conclusive

  723
  for the purposes of the Act the ecclesiastical preferment held by the clergyman "shall become vacant." Then read on—
  "The same consequence also shall follow after the like date if a bastardy order under the enactments for the time being relating to bastardy is made on a clergyman, and is either not appealed from, or on appeal is confirmed, or if a clergyman is found by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a Court sitting without a jury on an issue in a divorce or matrimonial cause to have committed adultery."
  I have read it in full purposely, so that your Lordships may know exactly what it says, as the most rev. Prelate has referred to it, and I must say I still cannot see that there is any object whatever in these words which I am moving to omit, or that the 2nd sub-section has anything to do with them.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is quite true that the proviso interpolated is a proviso on the first section. It is the last consequence mentioned that is referred to which would, therefore, refer to the first part of the clause, and not the last proviso but one. I think the words, do no harm, and that the clause is safer left as it is.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I will move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved, to omit the words, "the following consequence shall follow, that is to say."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: On this clause I have an Amendment to propose. I stated the general nature of it on the Second Reading of the Bill. You will observe that in the group of cases which are included in Clause 3, and which admit of many varieties and degrees there is a provision that the conviction is to be conclusive; but, according to the clause, the last words of it provide that the clergyman shall be heard to prove mitigating circumstances. Now, the first question I ask is, how are those mitigating circumstances to be proved? Of course, if justice is to be done, there must be a full inquiry into the matter on both sides, and this is one of the cases in which the clergyman wouldcertainly be
  724
  entitled to what may for shortness be-called a jury. The probability is that he will very often desire to have one. The result would be he would go on and prove his innocence if he can, and he may be able to prove absolute innocence. The first trial will not be conclusive as to punishment, and if he is to be allowed to go on proving all he can he may succeed in proving that he was absolutely innocent. Such cases are not at all unknown; but the Court would have to say, to him, "You are guilty, because you have been found guilty by another Court; but we do not think you are guilty, and we will treat you as having proved mitigating circumstances, and give you a very slight punishment, or none at all." That seems, an absurdity. What you want to provide is this: that the Ecclesiastical Court shall know all the circumstances; and it strikes me that the simplest way of doing it is to allow the Ecclesiastical Court to have all the evidence apon which the man was convicted laid before it. Then it would have all the materials that have been considered necessary to be brought forward in the first instance. Then comes the question whether he should be allowed an appeal, and upon that point I am bound to say I am rather against what I have put down as my own Amendment. I have thought it possible that some noble Lord might think that in certain cases the clergyman ought to be entitled to an appeal; but I believe, that if you adopt the other part of my Amendment, namely, that all the evidence is to be laid before the Court which has to pass the sentence or before the Bishop, you will ensure that the Ecclesiastical Court knows all the circumstances—that it has a complete know-ledge of everything, and that is what you want. I quite agree with what the noble and learned Lord opposite said on Second Reading that you must run the risk of a certain amount of injustice being done, but you need not do more than run that risk. The moment you say there is to be another trial, surely you ought to provide that the other trial shall be as complete as it can be without involving extra expense, and if you simply provide that the evidence which has been used in the Temporal Court shall be laid before the Ecclesiastical Court you will do all that is necessary for securing

  725
  justice on both sides. Otherwise you will run the risk which I have pointed out before. I wish to point out that this only applies to cases where the guilt of the accused clergyman admits of a variety of degrees. Take, for instance, cases of assaults. There may be cases of assault involving indecency, such as I alluded to the other night, in the case of Mr. Hatch, who had not, it afterwards turned out, committed any offence at all, and, therefore, mere mitigation would have been nonsense. That seems to me to be a case which ought to be subject to revision in the subsequent trial, as before a jury, if the clergyman thinks fit to demand it.
  Amendment moved, to omit the following words:—
  "This section shall not preclude the clergyman from being heard to prove mitigating circumstances,"
  and to insert the following:—
  "The evidence on which he was convicted shall he laid before the Court, and its judgment shall be subject to appeal under the same conditions as in other cases, and the evidence shall in like manner be laid before the Bishop if he has to pass sentence summarily."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Ordinarily, as I understand it, the Judge takes a note of the evidence at trials of this description and it is the Judge's note ordinarily which is looked at afterwards in other Courts. Does my noble Friend mean that the Judge's note of the evidence should be laid before the Ecclesiastical Courts?
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think that probably this result would follow as in the case of what is called the preliminary inquiry in reference to drunken clergymen. There is a provision in the old Clergy Discipline Act that the evidence shall be laid before the Bishop, and the parties either agree to have a shorthand writer, or the notes are taken by the Court. I may say that I have taken them myself to save the expense of a shorthand writer. I think that is an answer to that question.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have no objection certainly to the purpose which the noble Lord has in view. I think it is very desirable that before passing sentence and awarding punishment the Ecclesiastical Court should know what the character of the offence was as
  726
  disclosed by the evidence, because, of course, that would obviously influence or might influence considerably the punishment to be inflicted. Therefore I agree entirely with his object, and I think the words at the end of the clause to which he refers were added with that notion. Certainly I do not think the language happy, though I rather thought it was my noble and learned Friend's.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: No.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I rather thought that was so, because I had a manuscript sent from him in which it appeared. However, we quite agree that the words as they stand will not do, and I had thought of suggesting some such words as these—that the clergyman "may be allowed to show the circumstances under which the offence was committed in mitigation of punishment," but such a proviso is again open, no doubt, to the objection which my noble and learned Friend has raised that the matter might be more simply dealt with by providing that the Ecclesiastical Court shall have the evidence given in the temporal Court before it. I think if those words were adopted there would be nothing to prevent the accused person being heard in mitigation of punishment. I fancy that any Court in dealing with a case before it, would hear whatever could be said in mitigation of punishment without any express provision; but in providing for it the difficulty, of course, arises of determining what the machinery to be used is for bringing the evidence before the Court. I think we might consider in Standing Committee how best we could do it. I quite sympathise with my noble and learned Friend's object, and agree that it would be desirable to ensure that being done.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: At present I will withdraw the Amendment, reserving to myself liberty to bring it before the Standing Committee.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, in regard to Clause 4, I cannot help thinking that the language requires amendment. What it says is that if there is no appeal the decision pronounced shall be conclusive—

  727
  "Upon the expiration of the time limited for such appeal or the expiration of two months from the time of the conviction order or finding, whichever is earliest."
  Now, if that means it shall be absolutely conclusive when the time for appealing has expired, I can quite understand it; but surely, if more than two months are allowed, it ought to provide for that. Surely that must be the object, and I venture to suggest that it requires amendment, so as to make the term of two months applicable only when no time for appealing is really fixed. I propose, therefore, to omit the words "whichever is earliest," and to insert the words "when no such time is limited."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then in the next line, at the beginning of the next sub-section, the language is not clear, and I think the intention is insufficiently expressed. The words "in the event of an appeal" overlook a case provided for by the previous sub-section, because the appeal may afterwards be abandoned, and I, therefore, propose to put in after the word "appeal" the words on which judgment is pronounced by the Court of Appeal.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would suggest an Amendment, instead of the too indefinite words "for good reason" on page 5, line 14. The provision is this: that in certain cases which are necessary to be provided for, the Chancellor may—
  "Appoint some clergyman or layman, as the case may require, who is willing to serve and who is not objected to by either party for good reason,"
  to make up the necessary number of assessors. There must be somebody to determine the sufficiency of the objection; and I, therefore, suggest that those words "for good reason "should be left out, and that there should be inserted instead "for cause shown and deemed sufficient by the Chancellor." It is a matter which must be decided at
  728
  the time, and it would in that case be for the Chancellor to decide whether there was sufficient reason for objecting or not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Before this clause is passed, I should desire to point out one matter which will probably have to be considered by the Standing Committee. Sub-section 4 provides that the assessors chosen shall attend when required, and that if anyone fails to do so "he shall be disqualified for acting or being elected again as assessor." Supposing a man is ill or that his absence is entirely owing to circumstances over which he has no control, it is not intended surely to disqualify him from acting in future. It would be wrong in such a case to say that his appointment as assessor shall be at an end, and it should surely be subject to this proviso: that "any one without assigning some sufficient reason for his absence "shall be disqualified, and that it should be for the Judge of the Court to decide as to the sufficiency of the cause.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I quite agree with the most rev. Prelate that it should be so. The Chancellor is to declare the vacancy, and he should be satisfied with regard to any excuse offered that it is a valid excuse.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Would it not do to say "except for good cause allowed by the Chancellor?"
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Yes that would do; but I am afraid I am not in order in suggesting it now, and I will say no more about it at present.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am disposed to think that the words at the end of this clause will require modification, "that if an appeal is brought the operation of the sentence shall be suspended until the appeal is dismissed or abandoned." There may be upon the appeal a sentence which is, on the one hand, partly in favour of, or, on the other, wholly against the person accused. I would suggest the substitution of the word "determined" for "dismissed."
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have an earlier Amendment in line 12, which is this: It is in Sub-section 3, which provides that—
  "If sentenced to suspension from the performance of the duties of his ecclesiastical preferment for any term, he shall not during that term reside in the house of residence of that preferment, nor if the sentence so requires reside within the distance specified in the sentence from the place of such preferment."
  The object of that sub-section is, of course, to provide against interference on the part of a suspended clergyman in the affairs of the parish. Of course, though he might be required not to reside it would be possible for him to return for a few hours and do a great deal of mischief. The real evil does not consist always in the actual residence of the suspended clergyman in the house, although that might be very annoying, but it mainly consists in the fact that he may persist in presiding in the vestry, interfering in the management of the schools, and taking other part in the general administration of the parish. It is, of course, the object of this part of the Bill to prevent that. I therefore propose to your Lordships to add, after the word "preferment," the following words:—
  "And further, he shall not, dining the term, he entitled, without the leave of the Court, to exercise or perform any right or duty of or incidental or attached to his preferment."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, to omit the word "dismissed" and to insert the word "determined."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: In this clause, my Lords, I have to draw attention; the wording, which seems to me to be of very great importance. The clause makes provision for deposition by the Bishop of the diocese after the derivation of the delinquent clergyman. It seems to me rather a strong ring to say that the Bishop of the diocese could have the power of actually grading a clergyman, and what I was going to propose was that there should
  730
  be an appeal granted him to the Archbishop. I propose, therefore, that these words should be added to the clause:—
  "Provided always that such clergyman should have the right of appeal within one month to the Arch bishop of the province, whose decision shall be final."
  These cases are quite analogous to many others in which the Bishop acts as regards curate's licences, sequestration of benefices, and many other like cases, in all of which there is given an appeal to the Archbishop of the province. I cannot help thinking that the clergy would be more satisfied if there was in these very grave cases also an appeal to the Archbishop of the province; and unless the most rev. Prelate objects to the Amendment, I beg to move an Amendment that the words I have read be added to the sub-section.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Would it not be better to include the Bishop of the diocese and the Archbishop of the province together? This point has been called to the attention of the Bishops, and I was in hopes that by this time the right reverend Bench might, have thrown some light upon it. I really do not pretend myself to know whether it would absolutely require the concurrence of the Archbishop.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I think what I propose will do what is wanted.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: The Bishop and Archbishop being included in it together would probably avoid any possibility of conflict.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Is the suggestion that they should jointly depose?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Suppose they are both named and they differ.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: It would be subject to the decision of the Archbishop.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should have thought it would for the moment have been better to accept the most rev. Prelate's Amendment.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I only want the proper form to be ascertained. That might be done among the Bishops themselves. Perhaps by the time we get to the Standing Committee they will have been able to settle that.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Amendment is to insert after the word "diocese," in line 31, the following words:—

  731
  "Provided always that such clergyman may appeal from the said sentence within one month to the Archbishop of the province, whose decision shall be final."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am not quite certain, my Lords, that the effect of some Amendments which I proposed to move upon this clause would he clearly understood. I will, therefore, with your Lordships' permission, withdraw the Amendments on Clause 29 and bring them forward in Standing Committee.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Upon Clause 31 I have only this remark to make: It is possible there may be a case or two pending when this Act comes into operation. Now, one object of the Bill is to prevent the expense of a multitude of appeals on technicalities and things of that kind. I therefore suggest that it would be expedient to add some such words as these: "All further proceedings in any suit then pending shall be carried on according to the provisions of this Act." That proviso, I propose, should come at the end of the clause.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think that will require a little consideration, because I am not quite sure whether at after stages you could in an old suit work under this new procedure. I think I understand the object which my noble Friend has in view, but perhaps he will defer that proposal to be hereafter considered.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I will omit that Amendment for the present.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee: and to be printed as amended. (No. 59.)

POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 51.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which has passed the House of Commons. It relates only to Ireland, and its object is the better preservation of the Pollen Fisheries by making it illegal to take or sell under-sized fish. I need only mention that it has the approbation of the Fisheries Board in Ireland, and I move now that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 55.)
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 1.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I wish to call the attention of the noble Marquess to Sub-section 3 of Clause 7, and to the Amendment moved substituting County Court proceedings for distress. On the last occasion the Government said that certain words should be inserted in that sub-section, and I must say that that promise has been strictly, but too literally fulfilled. We had a right to expect, as the noble Marquess moved the suspension of that section, that something would be done to give us access to the County Courts, but now words have been added which were not there before referring to the provisions of Sections 81 and 85 of the Act. That is to say, that sub-section has been made worse than it was before by bringing forward more prominently the provisions of the Tithe Bill. Then, in addition to that, in Standing Committee, all words referring to the Tithe Act and tithe rent charge have been removed, and words substituted referring to the Act of the 6 & 7 Will IV. chap. 71. I am afraid that He Majesty's Government, who have give no reason for shutting the landowners out of the County Courts other that that of passing the Bill more easily

733
are only playing into the hands of their enemies, who do not care for the occupiers, bat simply wish to provide opportunities for further disturbances. I hope it may not be so; and if, fortunately, it should not—if, in reality, the people who now object to the tithe are blinded and satisfied with these words—then, indeed, the ostrich will be justified, which thinks that it has concealed itself when it has buried its head in the sand. I suppose at this time it is of no use to say anything more, or to ask for the omission of the words "not otherwise" in the sub-section, if the Government is firmly decided upon not allowing the landowners access to the County Courts. I would also ask the noble Marquess if he can find any words regarding the rating of the clergymen, which will provide that they shall not be in a worse position than before. At present, in most unions, they are allowed 15 percent. off the gross tithe; and if they are in future to be assessed as occupiers, they will lose that advantage, and be rated rather higher than before.
*LORD BRABOURNE: My Lords, before the head of the Government answers that question, I wish to say a few words—and a few only—at this stage. I think the House has some little reason to complain that, after the Amendments which have been adopted in Standing Committee, no longer time has been given to enable the House to become acquainted with the Amendments before having to consider the Report. But I do not wish to trouble myself with that point at present; the point upon which I do wish to trouble your Lordships for, I am afraid, a few seconds is this: The reference in Sub-section 3, Clause 1, to the Tithe Rent-charge Act is in this manner—
"Such sum shall he recoverable from the occupier by distress in like manner as is provided by Sections 81 and 85 of the Act of the Session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of King William IV., chap. 71, and the enactments amending those sections, and not otherwise."
In the Bill as it went up to the Committee the words were "under the provisions of the Tithe Act. 1836." Now, the noble Marquess moved in Standing Committee to change that, and I want to point out two things: In the first place, in the Bill as it stands, other references are made to the original Act as the Tithe Act of 1836;
734
and if you are going to refer to the Act in the present measure I cannot see why the reference to the Act cannot, in every instance, be couched in the same terms. It seems to me rather absurd to refer to the same Act in one form in one section of the Bill and in another form in another section. But I have something more to say. I have read in the ordinary channels of information that in the Standing Committee the noble Marquess said that his reason for the change of words was that he did not think it necessary to call the farmers' attention to the fact that it is tithe that is still being paid by them. Now, I humbly conceive that it is not only desirable, but just and fair, that this should be done. What, in the first place, are you, in fact, doing by this Bill? It has been represented that by this Bill you are giving something to the occupiers. You are doing no such thing. You are only forbidding the owner to pay the tithe in the manner which has been shown practically to be the most convenient. But, supposing a man is paying £40 a year for his farm, which would be worth £50 but for his contract to pay £10 to the tithe owner, you are now going to make the owner pay it. Do you mean the owner to be robbed to that extent or not? I presume the answer would be "Certainly not." What then, I ask, could be more fair than to provide by this Bill that he shall be allowed to keep it before his eyes, and before the eyes of the occupier, that it is still tithe rent-charge which is paid, only that he is to be compelled to pay it in that way instead of its being paid by the occupier as hitherto? I do not want to recapitulate the arguments I have already used against this Bill. I believe it to be a measure which will do a great deal of mischief; and that it will cause a great deal more friction between owners and occupiers than it will remove between clergymen and their parishioners. But now I would put it to your Lord-ships whether the plainest, most straightforward, and most honest proceeding is not this: As you are going to give the landlord power in such a case to obtain by distress £10 more from his tenant, because that sum of £10 is to be now paid by him which the tenant had hitherto undertaken to pay, would it not be better to say so? What you are doing, it is said, is not to rob

735
the owner, but to remove friction between clergymen and their parishioners, and to facilitate the recovery of the tithe rent-charge. Well, if so, let us have a plain, straightforward reference to that object in a manner which will be understood by everybody. I will move, for form's sake, that the words after "as provided" in this subsection be left out; that is, from the words beginning "by sections," and so on, in line 26, to the end of the clause, and insert in their stead "as provided by the Tithe Act, 1836." That will restore the Bill to its original state, and make the reference to that Act the same as it was before, and is now in one or two other places, in the Bill.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord opposite, I must disclaim having made any promise at all, and therefore I must disclaim having been guilty of any breach of faith. I am very sorry if the noble Lord was misled by what I said on a previous occasion, or was induced not to speak against the clause or to take a Division on that occasion, or if any noble Lord has been inconvenienced by the Report having been brought up so soon; but I had no intention of any such result, and I must assert that I gave no promise, either on the Second Reading of the Bill or on the stage of Committee of the whole House, which has not been fulfilled. I certainly never gave any kind of promise that we would give the landlords access to the County Courts. I must equally repudiate the noble Lord's charge that we have given no reason for that policy. I do not mean to say that I think it would do any great harm; but undoubtedly, in strict logic, as we maintain that by this Bill we do not change the status of the occupier but merely change the relations of the tithe owner and the landowner, we are bound to take care that in no respect shall the occupier be in a worse position than he was before. A part of the advantages which he has enjoyed, or is supposed to have enjoyed, under the existing law is the precise limitation of the remedies by which the amount could be recovered from him. If we enlarge the number of those remedies
736
and make the recovery of the debt, so far, more easy, we should to that extent have diminished the advantage of his position; and, therefore, upon the principle which we announced as the principle upon which the Bill is drawn, I think very strict justice required us not to give the landlords, in the words of my noble Friend, access to the County Courts. With respect to the point which has been raised by the noble Lord behind me, I cannot say that I think it is one of very great importance; but I maintain that the designation of the Act which I have given in this clause is the correct one. If yon put the "Tithe Act" merely, you run a certain danger that ignorant persons will think that this money which the tenant owes to the landlord is still tithe. It will no longer be tithe: it will be a debt due from the occupier to the landlord, arising out of a previous covenant. It is no longer tithe, and I think it is undesirable that any mistake should exist upon that subject. I am not for a moment saying that it is a matter of serious importance, but I confess I think that the clause as it stands; is in the most logical shape, and I should be disposed to adhere to it.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble Friend who spoke at an earlier period of the discussion was, I think, under a misapprehension in reference to the words which occur in Clause 2, at line 5, that the County Court,
"After such service on and hearing of the owner of the lands as may be prescribed, may order that the said sum or such part thereof as appears to the Court to be due together with the costs, be recovered in manner provided by this Act."
And then it goes on to say that the tithe shall not be recovered in any other manner. The effect of those words would, I think, be to render it essential that there should be a hearing; and I think it would be well to amend that. I cannot think that the criticism which was passed upon this clause was without some foundation, and I propose to strike out the words "and hearing" and to-put in substitution for them—
"And, after hearing the owner if he appears and desires to be heard"

737
The clause will then read thus—
"After such service on the owner of the lands, as may be prescribed may, after hearing the owner if he appears and desires to he heard, order,"
and so on. It seems to me that will get rid of the difficulty, and will, at all events, I should think, not raise any controversy. We are all agreed as to what is intended to be done, and it really resolves itself into a question of drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
Verbal Amendments made.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 8 agreed to
Clause 9.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move in this clause, at page 6, line 4 after the word "recoverable," to insert—
"And if the court is satisfied that such remission has not been taken into account in estimating the rateable value of the tithe rent charge, the court may remit such amount of any then current rate assessed on the owner of the tithe rent-charge as appears to the court to be proportionate to the amount of the remission of tithe rent-charge."
The object is to meet cases not of probable or of large injustice, but still of undoubted injustice such as that which was brought forward by the right rev. Prelate who presides over this Diocese during the Debate in Committee of the whole House. You give by one clause of the Bill power to the County Courts to decide that tithe in certain cases is not due, and it would be eminently unjust in those cases that the owners should pay rates upon that tithe. This clause is intended to remedy that defect.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not wish to raise an objection to the principle of the Amendment proposed; but I would wish to ask the noble Marquess whether there ought not to be a provision that the landowner should pay the amount. It may, I think, be stated in this way: there is so much owing out of the land; the landowner will, in certain cases, have to pay less to the tithe owner, and that of course increases the amount which the owner gets from the land, and, therefore, I think the landowner ought to pay the amount which the tithe owner would otherwise pay.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether I may speak again, but it seems to me, with deference to the noble Lord, that the value of the land has so far been destroyed; and the value of the land having been destroyed there is no rate upon it, and there ought not to be any rate upon it. Therefore, the parish would have no more right to get it out of the landowner than to get it out of the tithe owner.
LORD HERSCHELL: I would only point out that the rate, such as it is, has been fixed upon the rateable value of the land under different circumstances. It may have been fixed upon the land in its condition of producing very little, and obviously if it has been so fixed the rate is perfectly right. Although you say the tithe owner is not to pay the whole of it, that does not make the rate wrong, because it may have been actually fixed with regard to the fact that the land has produced so little. Then there is one other point upon this which I should desire to call to the noble Marquess's attention. It treats the case as if the tithe owner must have been rated to the full amount unless the remission has been taken into account. But what had really happened might have been this: The remission might not have been taken into account, because the time for making it might not have come, but the tithe owner might have had his rateable value diminished because there was this power of remission. I think the noble Marquess will see in a moment how it will raise the rateable value, if any, if the tithe is obtained in this way, by simply enquiring what a tenant will give for it. If a tithe owner could show that he was entitled to tithe out of lands of such annual value as that the Court had power to deprive him of part of it it is quite clear that the tenant would give less for it if those tithes were payable than before, and consequently the parson, or whoever the tithe owner might be, would get the remission because under the power of remission his rateable value ought to have been reduced below what it was before. Of course, if that has been done he ought not to get a further remission under those circumstances, because the fact of the remission has been already taken into account in fixing his rateable value.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord has exerted his ingenuity to a very considerable extent, but perhaps I may suggest the word "deduction" instead of "remission." "Deduction" is, I think, capable of conveying both meanings.
LORD HERSCHELL: Or "that the provisions of this Act relating to deductions have been taken into account." If the noble Marquess will put it in that form that might be sufficient, but I would rather consider it before I make any further suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had another Amendment in Clause 7, but I shall not move it now.
Clause 10.
*LORD THRING: The object of my Amendment upon this clause is to substitute a shorter, and I hope a clearer, definition for the definition which has been carried into the Bill by reference from the Act of 1836. My definition makes the owner in effect to be the person, who receives the rents from the occupying tenant. I think it can do no harm whatever as the Act imposes no liability upon the owner. The only effect of this clause is to designate the owner as the person on whom service is to be made before proceedings can be taken in the County Courts. It is evidently exceedingly necessary that in a Bill which is to be carried into effect by County Court Judges, and in which clergymen and other persons not versed in legal technicalities are interested, the provisions should be couched in such a form, if possible that they can be "understanded of the vulgar." I rather thought the words in reference to the Act of 1836 might be unintelligible to most people, though in saying that I am subject to correction by my noble and learned Friend Lord Selborne, who says that he quite understands it. Still I think it is a clause not to be easily understood by ordinary intellects, and I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will accept this shorter form. I am sorry to say that the references are not quite right in the printed notice, but I have set them right
740
in the Paper which I have given to the Lord Chancellor.
Amendment moved, in page 7, line 14, to leave out from "case" to end of paragraph and insert—
"means any person who shall be in actual possession or in receipt, or entitled to the receipt, of the rents and profits of land, and for the purposes of this Act the decision of the County Court as to who is the owner shall be conclusive."—(Lord Thring.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 60.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 43.)
Read 3a (according to order); amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to make provisions in regard to the registration of certain writs in the divisions of the General Register of Sasines in Scotland—Was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 61.)
ORDNANCE SURVEY—IRELAND.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to ask the Lord Privy Seal, with reference to the reply to a recent question as to the progress that is being made with the revision of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland, whether Her Majesty's Government will cause steps to be taken to hasten the completion of the survey on the 25in. scale, said: My Lords, about six weeks ago I asked my noble Friend below me a question about the progress that was being made with the Ordnance Survey in Ireland, and the answer I got from him was in effect that considerable progress had been made with two of the counties. One of those counties was Galway, a large county, and the other was Roscommon. Now, as there are 32 counties in Ireland, it stands to reason that progress at the rate of parts of two counties in a year is not very rapid, and that to complete the survey of Ireland on the 25in. scale, would at that rate take something like 20 years

  741
  at least, This is a matter or very pressing importance, because we have now in full swing a system of land purchase by small occupiers, and we are likely to require the maps very shortly in view of the system of local registration and legal record of title under a Bill introduced in the other House. I have thought it well, therefore, to bring the matter again before Her Majesty's Government, and to ask whether it is possible in any way to hasten the completion of the survey on the 25in. scale.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBKOOK): My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to state that steps have already been taken to hasten the progress of the 25in. survey of Ireland by the creation of a new and additional Survey Division, and some of the surveyors of this division are already at work. To show the progress that has been made, I may state that the provision in the Estimates for revising the Irish survey was, in 1889–90 £15,750, in 1890–91£25,200, and for this year 1891–92 it is £39,950.

HYDROPHOBIA AND SHEEP WORRYING.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to ask whether, in view of checking hydrophobia and sheep worrying, the Government would omit "cattle" as a ground of exemption from the dog licence, and so restrict exemptions on account of sheep, said: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble Friend the Lord President has undertaken to answer this question, because knowing as I did the illness of the Lord Privy Seal, it is a great relief to me that he has not ventured to come down to the House notwithstanding the increased clemency of the weather. It is hardly necessary for me to dwell much upon the danger of spreading hydrophobia being increased by a large number of vagrant ill-fed dogs. My noble Friend the Lord President will remember that once before in this House he stated that Anglesey was one of the worst counties in the Kingdom for hydrophobia: and there were about that time many more dogs than holdings in Anglesey. With regard to the worrying of sheep,
  742
  complaints have appeared from time to time in the newspapers in various places, but last December some figures were published in the newspapers of North Wales of the destruction of sheep and lambs during two years, in seven parishes only, of Carnarvonshire. From these it appeared that 1,502 sheep and lambs had been killed or worried, causing a loss of £1,047, the value of the sheep, and a loss of £211 paid to watchers to protect them from their natural guardians, for such these dogs must be considered, being a total loss of £1,250 odd. Most of these dogs are exempted from duty on the ground of their attending "cattle" or sheep, "cattle" being a plural word, which is understood to mean two. There is a very prevalent belief in all parts of the country that there is great laxity on the part of the Excise officers in granting exemptions, but that is not the case. The fault lies, I think, in the wording of the Act, which left no discretion to the Excise, which allows any farmer to claim exemption for a certain number of dogs to attend or watch cattle or sheep. The consequence is that any tenant of four or five acres with two cows, and who is not properly speaking a farmer at all but a cottager, and who generally cannot afford to feed a dog properly, keeps an exempted dog. Cattle—cows especially—are much better without dogs coming near them. They have the greatest aversion to dogs, and the consequence of using these dogs is that the cows frequently drop their calves. Farmers in Scotland constantly get their milk curdled, from the cattle being pursued by collie dogs, in consequence of the agitation and alarm caused to the animals on that account. The only place where there is a good excuse for using dogs in connection with cattle is in the Highlands of Scotland, where the cattle roam over extensive unenclosed mountain tracts, but in these cases the herds were usually sufficiently numerous for their owners to be able to afford to pay for licences. The same thing may be said of sheep; it is not to be wondered at if so large a destruction of sheep has taken place in Carnarvonshire when it is remembered that a large number of these dogs are not sheep dogs at all, but lurchers, greyhounds, and mongrels of every description. The

  743
  primary object of the Dog Duty at the present day is not so much revenue, as to prevent the undue multiplication of dogs; but this habit of exempting some dogs, which was only introduced in or since 1879, provides for the survival of the unfittest. The Dog Tax, your Lordships will remember, originated in the latter part of last century during the great war. It was proposed by a man named Dent, who got consequently the nick-name of "Dog-Dent," and it was so unpopular at first that he used to receive hampers with legs and tails of pheasants sticking out of them, but filled only with dead dogs. These exemptions give a vast amount of trouble at Somerset House and they cause, therefore, additional expense besides the loss of duty. In the County of Anglesey last year, 1,235 dogs paid duty, and 2,621 were exempted; in the seven parishes of Carnarvonshire, where this great loss of sheep occurred, 605 dogs were licensed, and 1,332 exempted, so that there were more than two dogs exempted for every dog that was licensed. In the Birmingham district, however, and its immediate neighbourhood, which is as your Lordships know, principally black country, there were only 384 dogs exempted on cattle farms—there are no sheep farms there—and as many as 11,573 dogs that paid duty. So that Birmingham stands very well both with regard to the vigilance of the Excise officers and the honesty of the pitmen who are very fond of their dogs, which sometimes it is said even get the children's milk and are supposed to be fed with mutton chops. I hope the Government will do something to check the increase of the number of dogs, which in 1878, before the exemptions were allowed, was 1,490,493. Calculating from the duty now paid, and assuming that the exemptions are upon much the same scale in all parts of the country the number of dogs would now amount to about 2,250,000. With regard to London I have not asked for the figures; but it is said that the Muzzling Order has had the effect of very much diminishing the number of dogs in and about London. What I ask upon the Notice Paper the fore, is, whether Her Majesty's Government will omit "cattle" tending as a ground for exemption of dogs from being licensed, and
  744
  will restrict the exemptions on account of sheep. The simplest way, it seems to me, would be to abolish all exemptions, and if that cannot be done farmers might be defined and distinguished from cottagers, and dogs claiming exemption should be brought before the Excise officers to show that they were bonâ fide sheep dogs.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I do not propose to enter upon the details into which my noble Friend has gone so fully. The fact is that the exemptions are regulated by an Act of Parliament. That Act of Parliament the Legislature has thought fit to pass, and I can only say that there is no intention on the part of the Government to take any steps for the repeal of that Act. As regards Birmingham, which my noble Friend mentioned, it is not likely that there would be any cases of sheep worrying there, because as he says there are no sheep dogs, and no sheep. If there were, farmers in the district would, probably, ask for exemptions for the purpose of taking care of them. I must point out that an Act of Parliament would be necessary to give effect to the proposed exemptions, but in view of the marked decrease in rabies consequent upon the Muzzling Regulations imposed by the Board of Agriculture, and that it appears unnecessary to impose a tax which would in other respects be injurious to the agricultural interest, the Government do not propose to make the exemptions suggested, or to alter those which at present exist.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.