HL Deb 12 March 1891 vol 351 cc732-40

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 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; 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 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 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 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 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.)