Lords Sitting of 12 March 1895

CONVENTION OF ROYAL BURGHS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD BALFOUR,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, he believed there would be no opposition to it. The Bill passed in another place without objection. Anyone who knew the municipal life of Scotland would be aware that, as at present constituted, the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs, including, as it did, only Royal and Parliamentary Burghs, was not fully representative of the municipal life of Scotland. The object of the Bill, to which he asked their Lordships to give a Second Reading, was to make it possible for the police burghs to join the Convention if they desired to do so. There was nothing compulsory in the measure. It was permissive, and therefore only affected the police burghs which desired to join. Those that did not desire to join could remain outside as at present.
Bill read 2a.

LAND TRANSFER BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL),in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that it had been more than once before the House. It was referred to a Standing Committee, but further proceedings were postponed at the suggestion of the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, that it might be considered whether the Finance Act of 1894, rendered any changes necessary. The Bill would probably be referred to a Standing Committee.
Bill read 2a.

SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
LORD PLAYFAIR,in the absence of Lord RIBBLESDALE, moved the Third Reading of this Bill, which was agreed to, and the Bill was passed.

LARCENY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the House went into Committee on this Bill, the Earl of MORLEY presiding.
Bill reported, without amendment, to the House.

PERJURY BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee, and was reported, without amendment, to the House.

THE IRISH TITHE RENT-CHARGE FUND.
THE EARL OF BELMORE*THE EARL OF BELMORE rose—
"to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Treasury have looked into the matter of the Irish Tithe Rent-charge Fund, as promised by the First Lord of the Treasury last Session; and, if so, whether and when a memorandum on the subject will be presented to the House."
The noble Earl said the question was one which he brought before their Lordships' House on two occasions last year. Therefore, although it was a subject of considerable importance, he need not say much by way of preface to his question. He would just remind their Lordships that last year he pointed out that the Irish Tithe-rent Charge, paid by the landowners of Ireland and commuted under the Irish Church Act of 1869 was based on a wrong calculation. When he said that he did not mean that the calculation was not made on the basis of the Irish Church Act, but he contended that the clause in that Act which ruled the calculation did not carry out the intention of Parliament and the promises of Mr. Gladstone in all his speeches in dealing with that Bill. On a subsequent occasion he moved for a return of a complicated nature, and the Prime Minister (whose absence they regretted) was good enough to say that a return could not be given in the form he desired, but that the Government would look into the matter and give a memorandum in some other form that would convey the information desired. He now wished to ask whether the Treasury had looked into the matter: whether they were prepared to lay that information before the House, and when they would supply it? The matter was important for this reason. As their lordships were aware, the price of trust securities at the present time

859
was very high; a considerable amount of land had been sold through the Land Purchase Court in Ireland—at any rate there had been as many sales as the Court could keep abreast of—and he was advised that it would be a good thing on receiving land stock to sell it at the present price and pay off the tithe rent-charge. Therefore, it was desirable that persons should know whether the Treasury were willing to look into this matter with a view to do justice, and that anyone who wished to pay off the tithe rent-charge would know he did it without prejudice to any future rights he might have. He saw the other day that Mr. Commissioner O'Brien, among others, gave evidence before the Committee on the Financial Relations between England and Ireland; and he stated, as an expert, in the strongest possible terms, that the tithe rent-charge had been enormously overcharged—he believed Mr. O'Brien put the figures at two millions; and he expressed the opinion—a strong one for an official—that those who had been paying the money ought to have it refunded to them. This was, shortly, the case he wished to lay before the Government, and he begged to ask the question which stood in his name?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): I am sorry to say this matter was overlooked last year, owing to the fact that the Treasury were under the impression that the noble Earl would move for a Memorandum. However, such information as the Treasury can give shall be prepared, and laid as soon as possible on the Table of the House.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid this was a grave matter for the landlords of Ireland, and pressed injuriously and harshly upon them as a question not only of positive law, but of administration. As pointed out by his noble Friend, if these rent-charges were sold, the price, according to Mr. Commissioner O'Brien, who must be regarded as an expert, would not realise more than 17 years' purchase. Yet the landlords were compelled, if they sought to redeem, to pay 22½ years' purchase. It was quite obvious that this was an urgent and pressing question, and if there was a serious mistake in fixing the 22½ years' purchase, it was plain that the matter should be set right. When the noble Earl who represented
860
the Government said the matter was overlooked last year, everyone would accept his statement. But that it should have been overlooked was unfortunate. The matter was discussed on two occasions last year, and it was pointed out that it pressed grievously and harshly upon many owners of land in Ireland. There was another point in connection with this subject. It was distinctly a question of administration, and could be remedied without waiting for any report or change in the law. He referred to the way in which Tithe Rent-charge was collected by the Land Commission in their character as the representatives of the Irish Church Commission. They all knew the pressure that was sought to be put on the Irish landlords to give abundant and generous time to their tenants to pay their rents. When their cases came into the County Courts, under the Statute passed a few years ago, the County Court Judge had the power not only of suggesting that time should be given, but compelling time to be given by directing payment, spread over a considerable time, by instalments; and in every form in which public opinion could be applied, officially and otherwise, to the landlords, the duty was inculcated upon them not to be urgent in pressing for the speedy payment of rents. The landlords of Ireland had shown over and over again the most earnest desire to be considerate and reasonable to their tenants in seeking for payment of their rents. But there should be some reciprocity, and from a document which he held in his hand he was in a position to say that the solicitor to the Land Commission, acting, no doubt, under positive instructions, applied to the landowners to pay the Tithe Rent-charge almost to the day; and bearing in mind that the only means the landlords had to pay were the rents they received from the tenants, it was very hard with one voice to request them to give time to their tenants, and with another to say—
"You must pay us to the day, even although you may have no funds, through the generosity and consideration you have shown to your tenants."
Here was a typical case of what went on. Tithe Rent-charge, amounting to £230, and only due last November, had been applied for within the last two or three weeks, in a letter from the solicitor

861
to the Land Commission, saying it must be paid within six days. This was a harsh and unreasonable proceeding, and merited some expression of opinion from those responsible for the general conduct of the business that reasonable consideration should be shown to those who had to make these large payments at a time when the funds that might enable them to do so were often in arrear.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
LORD KENSINGTON (in the absence of Lord TWEEDMOUTH)moved that the following Lords be named the Select Committee to consider these Bills:— The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Tweedmouth), the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the Marquess of Breadalbane, the Earl of Camperdown, Lord Saltoun, Lord Balfour, the Earl of Galloway, the Marquess of Huntly, the Marquess of Lothian, the Earl of Kintore, Lord Brassey, Lord Playfair, and Lord Welby.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Fifteen Minutes before Five o'clock.