§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD BRABOURNEI have too much respect for your Lordships' House and for myself to waste time in further delaying the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill, which I have all along regarded, and still regard, as a foolish, unnecessary, and mischievous measure; but I must enter a last protest against it. It has been defended on the ground that it will diminish friction; but I do not think that the Government are aware of the amount of friction that will be caused in many parts of the country, especially in the Western and Southern Counties, by this measure which they have introduced. I think, probably, it will be found that about the time of the next General Election the friction will have come to a head. By that time the agriculturists will have discovered what this Bill means, and I wish the Government, then, joy of the result. I only wish to point out to-night the maximum of injustice that is going to be done by it. You are not content with interfering with all the arrangements that have gone on perfectly satisfactorily for a great number of years; you are not content with telling the poorer occupiers throughout the counties of England that they are henceforth to break their contracts with the landowners, but you are going to invite them to do so just in the middle of the period which would be covered by their contracts. You will not even give sufficient time for new contracts to be made to carry 1185 out your own views. I have never known a Bill that was so little called for, so little supported by Petitions, or so little considered by a large proportion of those who have to bear the burden of these charges. It is a measure with which the Government have proceeded simply and solely without considering them. My Lords, I will say no more, but leave the Bill with that parting benediction.
§ On Question, agreed to.
§ Verbal Amendments made.
§ Amendment moved, in line 19, leave out ("owner of the rent-charge") and insert ("person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ *LORD BRAMWELLPerhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to call his attention to his third Amendment. I think the expression proposed to be substituted for the words in the clause is a very awkward one. The words which I refer to are "the sum ordered to be recovered." I would suggest to the noble Marquess it should be "ordered to be paid."
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have no objection.
§ *LORD BRAMWELLI think the clause would then be better English. That is my only reason for suggesting it.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI do not think that will do, because it is not the fact; it is not "ordered to be paid" under this scheme. The Courts do not order it to be paid. They only order it to be recovered in a particular way.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYFrom a literary point of view, I think the language of all Acts of Parliament is a matter of despair; but I am in the hands of the noble and learned Law Lords as to what those words are likely to be held to mean when they are considered in a Court of Law. If they can agree upon the subject I am very willing to be guided by them.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEFor my own part, I must confess I take the same view as my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell, that in order to be consistent with the language of the principal Act, which certainly is peculiar language, the words should stand as the noble Marquess has put them on the Paper. 1186 In the 1st sub-section the words are that "the Court may order that such sum may be recovered," and these are the very words.
§ *LORD BRAMWELLMay I call attention to Sub-section 2, which provides "the like powers of distraint for the recovery of the sum ordered to be paid?" If there is no order to pay, that section is wrong; if there is an order to pay, I think it is better the language should be consistent.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am afraid my humble lay mind would rather agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, but I think I must leave the clause as it is.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think here the draftsman has intended to cover both processes of recovery, and I am not certain if you strike out "to be recovered" and put in "to be paid," you may not get into some difficulty.
§ THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYThe difficulty is that in the previous section there are the words "the sum ordered to be paid." As it is hopeless to reconcile them, I beg to move the insertion of the words.
§ *LORD BRAMWELLI do not press my objection if the noble Marquess does not desire to adopt it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Verbal Amendments made.
*LORD MONK-BRETTONThere are some words on page 3, line 20, relating to service, that the County Court may direct what service is to be good service for the purpose of this Act "on the owner of any lands or tithe rent-charge." In the preceding sub-section and in Clause 4 we have also service "on the occupier" mentioned. Here it should be—
Shall be good service under this Act on the owner or occupier of any land, or on the owner of the tithe rent-charge.I therefore, move to insert after "on the owner" the words "or occupier."
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI think there can be no objection to this. Although, beyond all doubt, it is for the purpose of service on the owner that the rule is extended, still the words can do no harm.
§ THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYI have no objection under those circum- 1187 stances, though I do not quite know what service you have to make upon the occupier.
*LORD MONK-BRETTONIn the preceding sub-section it is provided that there shall be service upon the occupier in addition to the owner in certain cases.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think there can be no harm in it. I imagine the owner must be a person who can be found, and you can as well find him as the occupier.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7.
§ *LORD BRAMWELLAt line 21, page 5, I have an Amendment to leave out the words "or equity," which are needless. There are no suits in equity now. The word "law" is quite enough, and, therefore, these words had better be out.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI had put down this same Amendment for the Standing Committee, but I abandoned it for this reason: Though I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend, I am told this is copied exactly from the clause in the County Courts Act. It is quite true that in one sense, no doubt, it may be said because a mistake was made there, that is not reason for repeating it here; but the words having been used there, and this being a question of appealing from the County Court, it might give rise to some question if you omit the words here.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am afraid if the noble and learned Lord strikes out words simply because they are useless, he will establish a very bad precedent. There is usually a wealth of language in Acts of Parliament, which seems surprising to the ordinary lay mind.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe object of it, it strikes me, is this: The County Courts are Courts of Law, and they have a jurisdiction peculiar to themselves. The framers of the County Courts Act had that in view in using those two words, and, therefore, there might be soma difficulty caused if they were struck out here.
§ Amendment negatived.
1188§ LORD HERSCHELLOn page 6, line 2, with reference to what I called attention to when the Bill was before the House at the last stage, I propose to insert the words "liability of the tithe rent-charge owner;" because it is quite possible that he may have appealed against his rating, and his rating might have been reduced on account of his liability to such remission as is mentioned. That is the way in which the question would ordinarily arise, though it could not be urged strictly if the remission had been taken into consideration.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am bound to say this has alarmed some of the authorities very much. My mind is not quite subtle enough to see the absolute necessity for it; but I certainly cannot see the danger of it in any respect. I will admit it for the present, without, however, desiring at all to be understood as giving a guarantee that I shall be able to bind myself to it.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI think the words as they stand will come to the same thing. It is impossible that the remission as an actual fact can have been taken into account, and, therefore, the "remission" there means remission to an equivalent amount.
§ LORD HERSCHELLThen I may perhaps propose it in a slightly different form which may get rid of the objection, and make it perfectly clear, if the Court is satisfied that neither the remission nor the amount of liability have been taken into account. I think that would include all the points.
§ Moved, to insert after "that," the words "neither the remission," and after "liability thereto" to leave out the word "not."—(Lord Herschell.)
§ On Question, agreed to
§ *LORD BRAMWELLI think the Amendment I am now going to move is perfectly accurate and free from any objection. It is on page 6. The 5th sub-section says that "any clerk of the Commissioners of Taxes shall, &c." That is really a most original proposition. It is not right to impose a duty upon clerks of a Public Body, and, therefore, my proposal is to leave out the words "any clerk to," leaving it to the Commissioners, and they will appoint the way in which it is to be done.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI certainly will not oppose that.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 13.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI do not know whether the noble Marquess has anything to suggest with regard to the form of Clause 13; but I wish to make a suggestion upon it which I may tell your Lordships I have reason to know the noble Marquess will not object to. It is in the Reference to the Act, that the short title should be the "Tithe Rent-Charge Act, 1891," and not as in line 28, page 6, "Tithe Rent Act." The proper term is tithe rent-charge, as tithes have ceased to exist as tithes since 1836, and I think the noble Marquess shares my feeling for calling things by their proper names.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI share it when the names are not too long; but I think in this case it is a very reasonable insertion to make.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNow, my Lords, I have to move the addition of a new clause, which, I am afraid, is subject to what my noble Friend Lord Brabourne said was his benediction—the parting benediction he bestowed upon the Bill. I have only inserted it because I thought it more convenient that the Bill should come into operation at once, and I have had no information of a different kind. But it is quite obvious that the Bill cannot come into operation on the 31st March unless it has been passed by that time, which would not be the case if by any accident the Bill is delayed in another place. If so, it is obviously necessary that those words would require alteration; but unless they are inserted now in the Bill, it would not be competent to the House of Commons afterwards to alter it, and it is absolutely necessary to put in some date or another.
§
Amendment moved, to add the following new Clause after Clause 13—
This Act shall come into operation on the thirty-first of March, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD BRABOURNEIt seems to me rather an unnecessary thing to add to this mischievous Bill. It is bad 1190 enough to say that you will allow people to break their contracts in future, but why they should be allowed also to do so in the middle of the annual contract period I cannot understand. It seems to me an unnecessary addition to its injustice, and I think it would be much better to postpone the date until the end of the time for paying the charge, which is in October, and allow the start to be made then. But, I suppose, it will be-quite unavailing to make that or any other suggestion in face of the unholy alliance between the two Front Benches in this House; and as it has only occurred in this House, it is an alliance which astounds me. In another place the Bill was the subject of considerable opposition on the part of a mournful array of 162 men—Tories and Unionists—who devoted themselves to-fighting against it; but when the Bill comes to this House we find all as sweet as sugar, the two Front Benches vieing with each other in paying mutual compliments. I can only say, after the observations which the noble Marquess has made with regard to the date of the Bill, that we poor agriculturists who are going to have this unnecessary measure forced upon us are still able to say, "Thank heaven we have a House of Commons!"
§ LORD HERSCHELLI must entirely repudiate having been, in the noble Lord's phraseology—I do not know whether I should say, guilty of paying compliments to the noble Marquess, and I am not aware that from the Front Bench on which the noble Marquess sits, complaints have been addressed to this side of the House. Those are, I think, altogether creatures of the imagination of the noble Lord. But for myself, if I may be allowed to explain the position I have taken up with regard to the Bill, it is this: so far as it is designed to relieve the occupier of this payment, and to cast the burden which has always fallen ultimately on the owner, it may be directly, and in the first instance, on him entirely, I approve of the object of the Bill; and I do not know that the Party to which the noble Lord has alluded, to which I belong, has ever objected to the Bill so far as it embodies that principle. Some may have thought it does not go far enough, or that this, that, or the other provision ought to 1191 have been contained in it; but in so far as it carries out that principle, I cannot acknowledge for a moment that I have been guilty of the slightest inconsistency as a Member of the Liberal Party in desiring to see a Bill having that as its main object passed into law. As to the provisions contained in it, as far as they are consistent with that object and carry it out, I have done my best undoubtedly, as far as was in my power, to make the Bill which I believe to be a sound one, as good a working Bill as I can. I am not conscious of having done anything in that respect inconsistent with the full performance of the duties of a Member of the Party to which I belong, about which, the noble Lord opposite seems so anxious. It is very evident that he feels it is a serious matter that there should be a falling away of any Liberal Lord from the principles which he has avowed, but, at the same time, I must confess I am not conscious of having laid myself open to such a charge. If we had been desirous of making this Bill, in any respect from our point of view, stronger or more extensive, or more practical, we are perfectly aware that we should have been wholly and entirely powerless in the matter. All that we could do, and all that both my noble Friends on this Bench, and others have endeavoured to do is this: that approving of the principle of the Bill to which I have alluded, we have endeavoured to so assist in framing the measure that it shall, containing that principle, be most effectually carried into law.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI only wish to say that I am not aware that in bringing forward this Bill, either in regard to the form of it or in conducting it through the various stages, there has been either on this side of the Table or the other any abandonment of the principles ordinarily followed in conducting public affairs. Certainly in this House it has always been the maxim of otiose who are the Opposition at the time undoubtedly to give effect to their principles, and, undoubtedly, to insist that those principles shall receive a fair hearing; but, at the same time, to do their best as Members of the Legislature in order to ensure that whatever Statute is put upon the Statute Book shall be as 1192 workmanlike an enactment as possible, and shall be so constructed as to be beneficial to the people. I also beg to say that the noble Lords opposite, who have, I think, never paid me any compliment at all, have not usually failed as regards avoidance of compliments which we on this side observed when in Opposition in trying to follow that very elementary rule. I do not think that this Bill is, or need be, a Party question; its first object is to relieve the tithe owner under circumstances of great trial, especially in one particular part of the country, but its more general, more prominent, and wider object is to give a true rendering in practice of the intention of the Act of 1836, to remove an abuse which has grown up insensibly and without being observed, and to place on the owner of the land that burden which Parliament intended he should bear, and which Parliament did not intend he should place upon the shoulders of the occupier.
§ On Question, agreed to.
§ Bill passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended (No. 70.)