has been fixed by us at 20 years' purchase, we regret to have to report that no effect has as yet been given to the provisions of the 15th Section of that Act for the revision of the prices of either quit-rents or of tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission, which have still to be redeemed at the respective rates of 25 years' and 22 years' purchase."

of over-valuation, Mr. Morrough O'Brien, one of the Irish Land Commissioners, had recently given evidence before the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland

all instead of being variable at intervals; but the result had certainly been rather disadvantageous to the persons liable for this particular payment. He noticed in the recent Report of the Land Commissioners that in the last year 11 perpetuity rents, amounting to £1,419, were reduced in accordance with The effect of the maintenance of this the prices of corn to £959, a very sub- high rate of purchase was that a landstantial reduction, and one which the lord who was the owner of a lay tithe of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge was now £10 a year payable to him out of lands no longer liable to. Then, with regard which were being sold, received for that to the terms of commutation, they would payment at the rate of 20 years' purrecollect that last year Lord Belmore, in chase-namely, £200 ; but if, at the same a very temperate and carefully-reasoned time, he was selling lands charged with speech, laid before them certain reasons an ecclesiastical tithe of £10, he had to for believing that there had been a very buy that up at 22 years' purchaseserious miscalculation in the terms upon namely, £225, or a difference of no less which the tithe rent-charge might be than 12 per cent. between the two redeemed under the Irish Church Act. transactions. In regard to the question The noble Earl showed that while the Bill was under discussion the original proposal of the Government had been considerably modified, and that, in consequence, the number of years in which the principal sum, together with interest, to the effect that tithe was to be extinguished had been over- rent-charges, though a first charge on estimated by no less than six years, and the land, were difficult to identify, costly that whereas 46 years would have been to collect, and not easily saleable in the the proper term to lay down, the term open market, so that, as a rule, they actually laid down was 52 years. Lord were not worth more than 17 years' purBelmore subsequently asked for statistics chase; that perpetuity rents were not from Her Majesty's Government with worth more than 21 years' purchase, and the object of elucidating this point, but, as the Church rents were variable with owing to an unfortunate piece of forget- corn prices, they were not worth as much fulness, which was admitted the other as ordinary fee farm rents; but that the day, that information had not yet been Church Act had fixed the price of tithe provided, and he hoped that the noble rent-charge at 22 and perpetuity rents Lord who was going to follow him would at 25 years' purchase, thus adding be able to tell them that it would be laid £2,779,000 to the then market value of upon the Table of the House at an early the securities, the artificially swollen date. But there was a good deal of value being to the detriment of owners other evidence which showed that these of property subject to those charges. If tithe rent-charges were very considerably these contentions had any force in them overvalued under the Irish Church Act; those who were liable should at least it was a remarkable thing that on two receive from the public department conoccasions the Land Commissioners had cerned no less consideration than had approached the Treasury and made a been extended to them during recent specific recommendation that the number years. The allegation, however, was of years' purchase should be reduced that the Land Commission, instead of from 22 years to 20, and in a recent pressing these claims with moderation Report they said :-and forbearance, were at this moment The facilities afforded by the Land Law engaged in what was vulgarly called (Ireland) Act, 1887, for the apportionment and pulling up arrears, greatly to the inconredemption of quit-rent, tithe rent-charge, and venience of those who were liable for head-rents have enabled sales to be effected in these payments. Even on the best almost all cases discharged of outgoings. While, estates in Ireland, he believed it was the however, the redemption prices of head-rents are being fixed as provided by the 16th Section of case that rents and tithe rent-charges that Act, and the price of lay tithe rent-charge due in May were paid in November, and

66

those due in November were paid in think, if he placed such papers on the May; but now the tithe rent-charges Table, they would add anything to the due last November had been asked for explanation which he hoped he would be in February, and further time was able to give in answer to the questions peremptorily refused. This attempt of the noble Marquess. He was sure the to obtain the payment of three half- noble Marquess would be the first to years' tithe rent-charges within 12 admit that in the remarks he had months was, he thought, unwise. Every- addressed to the House he had wandered one knew that if the landlord were to a good deal outside the limits of his attempt to obtain payment of the rent question. He himself did not complain out of which the rent-charge was to be in the least of that. But the question met in a similar manner, and asked for asked for information upon the specific three half-years within the 12 months, action recently taken by the Irish Land he would be told he was acting very Commission with regard to the payment harshly and running the risk of troubling of tithe-rent charge, and he was sure his the public tranquillity. Recent legisla- noble Friend would not expect him to go tion abounded in provisions intended to into the redemption and over-valuation give every opportunity to embarrassed of tithe as affected by the Act of 1869 tenants to obtain from their landlords and the amending Acts since. He would the utmost indulgence. He believed that have to say a word in a different conat the present time a Bill was before nection on the Act of 1869, but not as Parliament designed, among other things, regarded general legislation as to comstill further to increase the difficulty mutation of tithes, which was not emof overtaking arrears of agricultural braced in the noble Marquess's question. rents in Ireland. He did not say that Whenever attention was called in the the indulgence was unwise, but he con- House to the recent action of anybody or tended that in common fairness it would anything in Ireland it was generally not be just to extend to those liable for these in a congratulatory tone. The present rent-charges a few shreds of the consider- case was no exception to the rule. He ation extended to those liable for the rent understood the noble Marquess—and he out of which the rent-charge had to be recognised the most moderate and temmet. That was the whole of his conten- perate way in which he put his casetion. He hoped there was no intention to say that the Irish Land Commissioners on the part of the Government to depart were supposed to be showing a want of in any way from the practice which had moderation and forbearance, and not hitherto governed the procedure of the showing the moderation and forbearance Department responsible for these matters. which the circumstances surrounding the He would like to hear whether the cases payment of sums of money owing would that had been commented upon in Par- warrant them to suppose they would liament and the Press were isolated show in the case of Ireland. The noble cases, or represented a policy that had Marquess also wished to know whether been deliberately adopted and sanctioned. it was the intention of the Government If there had been a new departure, he to take a completely new departure and hoped the noble Lord who would reply to act in future in a harsh and unreasonfor the Government would tell the House able manner towards those who had to whether it had been thought necessary pay tithe rent-charges. He also said that to make it; and whether, if there were if a new departure had been taken it any papers, and if any instructions had would be only right for the Government been given under which the Land Com- to say why such new departure had mission had taken this action, he would be good enough to lay them on the Table of the House.

LORD RIBBLESDALE said, that as to the papers that were asked for he could not conceive what papers he could lay on the Table unless it was a Return of payments and claims for payments on account of tithe-rent charge in past years. He had no such Return, and he did not Marquess of Lansdowne.

taken place. He put on one side altogether the idea that in what the Land Commissioners were doing or had done they had acted harshly. They were merely doing what they thought right in view of circumstances which he would explain. It was quite true that the custom for some years had been that the issue of notices for payment of tithe-rent charge due on May 1st did not take place until

early in October, and payments due on now? He did not think the Land ComNovember 1st were not paid until early missioners intended to deal harshly, but in March. The payment of May gale it was their duty to require payment of under the old order of things was de- the tithe rent-charge sooner than manded on May 1st, and the November hitherto, because they had to pay gale on March 25th. The noble Mar- interest and other money they might quess thought the recent action of owe on the day it became due. In conthe Commissioners pointed to a new clusion, he would inquire when the order of things. He admitted that memorandum, asked for by Lord Bela new state of things had come about. more, giving the calculations upon which The Commissioners, on full considera- the commutation of tithe rent-charge tion, had decided now that the notice was based, would be ready. for payments of tithe rent-charge should LORD ASHBOURNE said, that nobe issued within two months of the half- thing could be clearer, but, at the same yearly payment, and that the limit of time, more entirely unsatisfactory, than payments should be the first three the statement of the noble Lord. The months after 1st November and 1st May position appeared to be a harsh one, a for the payments then due. While six disagreeable one, and one that was months' credit was formerly given, now largely indefensible. The Irish landlords it was only three months. Those who and those who had to pay these charges had been accustomed to six months' ought not to be made to suffer because credit might feel the shortening of the Parliament, in its imprudence, had made period a little hard, but the persons to many charges upon these Irish funds. whom the money was owing had to be Over and over again attention had been considered as well as the person who drawn to the way in which the Church had to pay. It might be just as in- Fund had been charged with millions convenient for the creditor to give six and half-millions, and it was a wonder months' credit as it might be pleasant that the Fund had not come to an end for the debtor to obtain it. Roughly a long time ago. Each time a demand speaking, the tithe rent-charge amounted had been made it had been argued from to £170,000 a year. That was a large figures that the Fund was not insolvent, sum, and the Commissioners were bound but that, when all its assets were taken to pay the interest on the charges im- into account, it was quite solvent, and posed by Parliament on the Church Fund if it were wound up at some future time on the actual date on which the interest there would be a substantial surplus; but became legally due. The charges which each time the question had become they had to pay to the Church Fund graver and more serious, and had led to almost absorbed the whole of their re- the manifestation of more incredulity as ceivable income. Consequently, six to the power of the Fund to bear any months' credit had been allowed by further advance. From the statement those who had to meet their obligations which the noble Lord had made, appunctually to the day. There was also the difficulty of keeping accounts and having enough money to go on with. That was the reason why the change had been instituted. Previous to the Act of 1869 the tithe rent-charge was paid by incumbents and various ecclesiastical bodies in Ireland, and there was no reason to suppose that long arrears were allowed then. An incumbent probably pay these charges. The noble Lord carehad a family to bring up, boys to send to fully read, apparently from communischool, and the butcher and grocer to cated notes, the statement that an order pay, and therefore looked well after his had been made or a direction given. It tithe, and got it paid pretty punctually. would be satisfactory if this order or Why should arrears which were not direction could be produced, so as to allowed to run on continually in those show the date and the method of this days be allowed to run on continually new departure, and in its absence they

parently by instruction, it might be inferred that it was the Treasury who were really answerable for this new departure, and who had caused the collectors to press for prompt payment in order to enable them to satisfy the claims upon the Irish Church Fund. That was an unfair position in which to place those who were bound to

over

a

could understand that it was the Trea- LORD RIBBLESDALE said, he was sury that was responsible for this pres- sure the noble Marquess would acquit sure. He had heard the statement with him of having indulged in any criticism surprise; he did not expect an answer in the remarks he made as regarded tithe so painfully frank and disagreeably commutation rent-charge. What he said candid; he rather anticipated a denial was not by way of criticism, but it was of intentional or exceptional pressure, by way of excusing himself for not being and a promise of inquiry and of adher- able to go fully into a very different ence to older methods. This was a hard question which the noble Marquess case, and a harsh one. Irish landlords raised. Having said that, he must add were no more easy in circumstances than were their English and Scotch brethren, that he rather objected to the noble and it was hard upon them to ask them Lord opposite going into ques to make these payments almost to the tion which he had said he was not hour, whilst at the same time, in Parlia- prepared to go into, and making use ment, on platform, and in the Press, of a specific question by the noble they were asked to be generous, for- Marquess to convey what he might call bearing and indulgent in not pressing a somewhat menacing argument. They for their rents--nay, the sentiment was embodied in the language of statutes, were asked to do all sorts of things and for in the Act of 1887 there was a clause to make all sorts of inquiries which were empowering a County Court Judge, in- completely outside the original question, stead of taking land from a tenant in and which he took some exception to. arrears, to spread the payment of them The noble Lord opposite had asked him a number of instalments. The whether he had spoken from his own landlords were thus forbidden to seek notes or from what had been supplied to for that prompt payment which by him by some one else. It was quite true this new departure they were them that he had in his hands the answer selves required to make. This which he did practically make. As to harsh and unreasonable. Some agents the part he had read, to which the noble had received printed forms stating that Lord attached such super-excellent impayment must be made within six days. portance, the words "Treasury minute It was not fair criticism to object were not mentioned at all in the instructions. to the noble Marquess going outside the He did read, from the notes with bare question on the notice paper, which he had been supplied, the followfor they must look at the matter as a ing passagewhole. The 22 years' purchase adopted in the Church Act having come to be the measure for the purchase of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, the calculations on which it was originally based had been asked for and promised, but not supplied. The return was promised last year, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, regretted that the matter had been forgotten. It was very unsatisfactory that a return which was promised twice over in Parliament by the Prime Minister had been forgotten-a return which was greatly sought for in order to show how it came about that a heavy payment was exacted from Irish landlords when they desired to buy or redeem ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge. The statement now made left the matter in a position which necessitated further inquiry, and, if necessary, further discussion.

Lord Ashbourne.

was

"The Commissioners, on full consideration, decided that the demands for payment should go out in future within two months of the halfbecomes legally payable, and that the limit for yearly dates upon which tithe rent-charge payment should be three months after May 1st and November 1st respectively." He only read that because the noble Marquess had asked him a perfectly plain question as to whether a new departure had been made.

COURTS OF LAW FEES (SCOTLAND)
BILL.

Read 1: To be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (The Lord Chancellor.) [No 65.]

The House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock.

Parliament had wisely decided that corporations should not work the tramways COMMON S. unless they failed to get a proper price as a rental for the tram lines, but if they were to pass this Bill they would be proclaiming, far and wide, that it was the view of the House that the London County Council ought to work the tram

Thursday, 4th April 1895.

The House met shortly after Three ways themselves. He thought it would of the Clock.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL TRAM-
WAYS BILL.

be a very great mistake indeed if the London County Council did take upon itself the working of these tramways. The Committees were numerous enough already, and those committees had now more work than they could do efficiently. Then the Instruction would tie the hands of the Committee upstairs, and that he thought would be most unfair and most unwise. The hon. Member who brought forward this motion, had had no in

MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved: "That Standing Order 171 be suspended in the case of the London County Tramways Bill, and that the Committee on the Bill have power, if they think fit, to provide in the Bill, notwithstanding the said Standing Order, that the local authority may place and run carriages struction to do so from the present Parliaupon the tramways mentioned in the mentary Committee of the London Bill or any of them, and take and County Council. There was a meeting demand tolls and charges in respect of the Parliamentary Committee last thereof." Thursday, but not one word said about SIR J. PLUNDELL MAPLE (Cam- this Instruction, and he was surprised the berwell, Dulwich) regretted that he next morning to find this Instruction on had to oppose this instruction because, the papers of the House, and if it had in the first place, the hon. Gentle- not been for the hon. Member for Maryman had not consulted the Parlia- lebone that Instruction would have been mentary Committee of the County passed. That was the way they were Council, and therefore had no sanction being "jockeyed " by the present London whatever for bringing this matter for County Council. If this Instruction were ward. As it was, the County Council passed it would be tantamount to saying had plenty of work to do. That work that the London County Council were had been ineffectively done in the past. called upon to work these tramways, and They knew that the late Council was very by and by they would be enabled to take ambitious, and some persons seemed to upon themselves more work than it was have an idea that the present County doing now. When they had London Council was in favour of the policy of divided into divisional districts and the late Council, whereas it was totally much of the work that was now being opposed to it. As regards these tram- done by the County Council handed over ways, he believed there was a great to those authorities, then they might do future for tramways. He considered more work. But at present it was imthat a great many more were required possible for the members of the County in London, but if the London County Council, even if they were to attend from Council insisted on running tramways, early morning to late at night, to fulfil there would be no companies coming all the duties which now devolved upon forward to promote tramways. There- them.

fore it seemed to him that this was a MR. J. STUART said the hon. totally unnecessary instruction. It Member had made an assertion with would tie up the hands of the Committee. regard to himself, namely, that he The County Council, no doubt, was had placed this motion on the paper still in the hands of the Progressive without authority, which was incorrect. Members, although they represented A week ago the question of the propriety a minority of the the voters. Through of moving this Instruction was brought the co-option of the Aldermen they up before the Parliamentary Committee had still a majority, and they secured of the County Council, and by a narrow a majority on all the Committees. majority that Committee requested him