Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1936/jul/16/tithe-bill-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:44:28+00:00

Document:
§ LORD HASTINGS moved to insert, after subsection (6): ( ) No sum to the recovery of which this section relates shall be recoverable unless proceedings for such recovery have been commenced before the expiration of two years from the date at which it became payable. The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to continue in the new Bill that which is the present practice. Your Lordships will be aware that Inland Revenue is governed only by the Statute of Limitations, which extends to a period of six years. Presumably—I speak, of course, subject to correction—the Inland Revenue would be empowered under the general Statute to make retrospective any endeavour at recovery of tithe which they desired in a whole period of six years, a somewhat alarming prospect for the tithe-payer, in view, particularly, of the practice which has prevailed hitherto. I do not think I need argue this Amendment at any length, except, of course, just to say what I have said and to hope 943 that, if the Government are not able to give way on the Amendment, they will at least explain their reasons for not doing so, because I find it difficult to understand what their reasons could now be.
I quite understand why the noble Lord should move this Amendment, because after all this is a right, as I think he said, which the tithe-payers have had in the past. On the other hand, I would ask him not to press us further with regard to revolutionising the relations between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue. It is not likely that this case will occur, because the whole stability of this scheme is going to depend on the prompt collection of what is due by the Inland Revenue. In fact, the last Amendment on which His Majesty's Government gave way was a concession to exactly the opposite fear to that expressed by the noble Lord: the fear that the Inland Revenue would be too prompt in their methods of collection. I say I do not think it is likely to occur. The only period of the scheme at which it might possibly occur is towards the beginning, when the map, the register, and some of the particulars of ownership and so on are not quite clear, and it may take some time to get the matter straight.
If we passed this Amendment, beyond breaking a principle, which is an important thing in itself, I cannot say to the noble Lord that very dire things would necessarily result, but it does suggest to me a danger that you might get certain owners who delayed the taking of legal proceedings for a long time by con-ducting quite unnecessary legal disputes about ownership and so on. Your Lordships may say that that is not very likely, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who speaks for the tithe-payers, would himself say that there are a very funny lot amongst them! They are perhaps a small minority, but they have shown a most uncanny capacity for finding small legal means of evading their just dues. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment, which might really do more harm than good.
Before my noble friend Lord Cranworth moves the Amendment in his name with regard to the position of trustees, it might perhaps save time if I told him that, while we cannot accept the Amendment as it is in his words on the Paper, we recognise that there is a valid point in his Amendment. If it were convenient for him, I would propose that between now and the Report stage we should put down words on the Paper which he might have the opportunity of considering, and then he could say whether he was satisfied with them at that stage.
I thank the noble Viscount very much. I am bound to say that I am dissatisfied myself with this form of words, and I will not now move it.
Might I make one suggestion to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House? Ought not the word "executor" to be included as well as "trustee"?
I will think that suggestion over.
§ Definition of "owner" in relation to land.
§ (5) "Where under Section nine of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, the estate of a person who died intestate is vested in the Probate Judge, that Judge shall not be deemed to be the owner of any land comprised in the estate for the purpose of any action required or authorised by this Act to be taken by or against the owner of the land, but upon administration being granted the administrator shall be deemed for those purposes to have been the owner thereof as from the date of the death.
The Amendment which I move is purely drafting.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Marquess said: I desire to call the attention of the Leader of the House to what he has just said, and to ask him whether he will consider the point which I really have in mind on this Amendment. If 945 he will read the last few lines of the subsection he will find that the meaning, as far as I can understand it, is that the Probate Judge shall not be deemed to be the owner of the land, "but upon administration being granted the administrator shall be deemed for those purposes to have been the owner thereof as from the date of the death." As I read it it means that, with some qualification under Section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, supposing an individual is a trustee or appointed by the Court to be an administrator of an estate, and supposing that estate is unable to meet its obligations of tithe, he becomes liable to tithe in his own personal estate. That seems to me to be the meaning of the words, owing to the fact that tithe obligation is applied to the owner of the land, and for the purposes of this Act the administrator shall be deemed to be the owner of the land. I do not imagine that this is possible. It is surely never true that a trustee, except for reasons of abuse of his trust, becomes responsible in his own estate for an obligation which arises in respect of the estate which he administers. It is merely that I want that matter considered so as to be quite reassured that trustees may not one day wake up and find out that they are responsible for tithe in respect of estates which are unable to pay, and they are personally responsible in their own estates for the payment of the tithe.
What the noble Marquess has just said with regard to his Amendment puts rather a different light on it from that in which I have hitherto seen it. I do not pretend that I completely follow the point which he has made, and I think perhaps the most convenient course would be, as it is not a matter which is likely to be of any controversy between us, that he should withdraw his Amendment at this stage and I should undertake to have it considered between now and the Report stage without, of course, giving any undertaking to accept it.
It is just the same kind of point which, as the noble Viscount has just said, was brought up by Lord Cranworth's Amendment.
§ Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
§ Ascertainment and registration of owners of land.
§ (6) If the tithe-payer satisfies the Committee on a reference to them under this section that his financial circumstances are such as to render it fair and reasonable that a part or the whole of the arrears should be remitted, or that any order made for the recovery thereof should provide for the recovery thereof by instalments, the Committee, after giving to the tithe-owner an opportunity of making representations, may direct accordingly.
§ (7) Where a tithe-payer serves notice on the Commission claiming to have the matter of the recovery from him of arrears referred to the Committee, he shall be deemed thereby to admit legal liability for the payment thereof, and as soon as the matter has been disposed of by the Committee the Commission shall pay to the tithe-owner an amount equal to the arrears in respect of which the notice was served, less an amount equal to any remission directed by the Committee.
§ (9) For the purposes of the Tithe Act, 1925, sums received by a tithe-owner from the Commission under this section in respect of any arrears shall be deemed to be sums received by him on account of tithe rentcharge for the year in which the arrears became due.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved in subsection (6), to leave out "his financial circumstances are" and insert "the annual profit arising out of the land out of which the tithe rentcharge issues is." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment which I, as usual, hope the Government will see their way to accept. I venture to think that it will be found not a very satisfactory—indeed, rather an invidious—operation for the Arrears Investigation Committee to inquire into the financial circumstances of a man after the manner of a Bankruptcy Court. I think it should be avoided if possible. Moreover, I would point out that at the present time tithe is not a personal debt. It may be in the course of a few days, but at present it is not, and when the arrears were 947 incurred it was not a personal debt. This clause would have the effect of making this personal indebtedness retrospective, and frankly I do not think that it is quite fair. I venture to hope that the noble Viscount will see fit to accept this small Amendment.
I find considerable difficulty in meeting my noble, friend on this Amendment. The Amendment proposes to alter the reference to the Arrears Investigation Committee from the simple question as to whether the tithe-payer's financial circumstances justify a remission to the question whether the profit arising out of the particular land charged with the tithe rentcharge does in fact justify such remission. That is a rather substantial change and the noble Lord will recognise that, apart from the difficulty of dealing with cases from that new aspect, the difficulty would also be involved that it would be necessary to ascertain the annual profit that arises out of a particular inclosure, or indeed even parts of inclosures, as distinct from the annual profit arising out of the holding as a whole. It must be remembered that the arrears in question will consist of sums already legally due and payable by the landowners and in some cases sums that have already been ordered to be recovered by the County Court. For that position the Bill, as your Lordships are aware, takes what from that angle is the rather drastic course of providing an Arrears Investigation Committee, for the purpose of leaving them discretion to mitigate hardship in the case of tithe-payers who are unable to pay.
I suggest that the structure of the Bill is based on the principle that the question of hardship does not depend upon the profit or loss made from particular fields charged with tithe rentcharge but rather upon the general financial circumstances of the tithe-payer. I am well aware that that principle is one to which Lord Hastings takes great exception, but I am afraid that that is the principle on which the Bill is based and I would therefore ask the noble Lord if he is unable to agree with my argument to recognise that it is a least a valid one.
I think it is quite evident that if this Amendment is accepted it might have other results than that which the mover would necessarily anticipate. You have a number of people who deliberately let their land go because they want to shoot over it, and it would be easy enough to show that there was no profit on that land, that year. That might be done, too, by persons who were perfectly capable of paying tithe and who certainly ought not to be let off on that ground. The Bill as drafted gives very considerable powers or possible powers to the Arrears Investigation Committee, and if when tithe is claimed the tithe-payer gives reasons for thinking it is excessive the Committee has to adjudicate. No particular lines are laid down and therefore it seems to me that to leave the clause in the Bill as it stands is the wisest course to pursue.
In view of the answer, which is one that I expected, and in view of the majority which went against me on a similar Amendment, though of a far-reaching nature, I feel that I have no alternative but to withdraw my Amendment.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert at the end of subsection (7): Provided that this subsection shall not have effect as respects any arrears which are irrecoverable by the Commission by virtue of proviso (a) to subsection (10) of this section.
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is necessary to cure a technical defect in the drafting. The Bill provides that arrears are not to be recoverable, notwithstanding that the tithe-payer is legally liable in other respects, if the arrears became due more than two years before the commencement of proceedings to recover them. A tithe-owner might serve notice on a tithe-payer claiming payment of arrears which have become so irrecoverable, and the tithe-payer might, either inadvertently or possibly by collusion with the tithe-owner, require a reference to the Arrears Investigation Committee as to the arrears. If this were to happen the position under Clause 20 (7) as at present drafted would be that the Commission would have to pay an amount equal to the arrears (subject to 949 any remission ordered by the Committee) to the tithe-owner, although the arrears would be irrecoverable by the Commission.
§ THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH moved to add to subsection (9): and a proportionate part of any remission directed by the Committee of arrears of a rentcharge, to which the provisions of Section four of that Act relating to sums payable by way of sinking fund payment apply, shall be treated as attributable to the sum so payable for that year. The right reverend Prelate said: The object of this Amendment is a simple one and I have no doubt it will commend itself to your Lordships. Supposing the Committee allows a considerable concession, say, of £20 or £30 in respect of arrears. That is a concession upon a debt which was based upon a collection at the rate of £109 10s., £4 10s. of which was for sinking fund. It is obvious that if a concession is made, that ought to be equitably apportioned between the part which goes to the sinking fund and the part which goes to the owner and the owner ought not to suffer all the loss. The effect of the Amendment is to enable the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to deal with the matter and decide what proportionate part of any remission should be charged to the sinking fund.
I think this is a very reasonable Amendment. It seems only obvious and natural that if a remission is directed by the Arrears Investigation Committee it should be treated in the same way as if the remission were under the Act of 1891.
The two Amendments to this clause are drafting.
§ Clauses 22 to 29 agreed to.
These two Amendments are drafting.
§ Liabilities to repair chancels, etc.
§ Provided that where the rentcharge was vested immediately before the appointed day for an interest in fee simple in possession in any of the following corporations or bodies, namely, Queen Anne's Bounty, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a spiritual rector, an ecclesiastical corporation, or a university or college to which the Universities and College Estates Act, 1925, applies, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not have effect, but the corporation or body shall be subject to liability to repair in like manner as if the rentcharge had continued in existence and in the ownership of the corporation or body.
§ THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "rector," to insert "of a rectory with cure of souls." The right reverend Prelate said: 951 It may interest the Committee to know that even at the present day there are about nineteen rectors with no cure of souls, who are "sinecure" rectors. They could take up their stock and then disappear, and there would be no means of tracing them.
I think it is quite clear that it is desirable that rectors in the position of holding sinecures should be required to commute their liability in exactly the same way as the lay proprietor, and therefore we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ Furnishing of information by rating authorities.
§ (2) A rating authority shall, on being requested by the Commission so to do, inform the Commission whether any land in their area is or is not land in respect of which rates may be assessed.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after the second "Commission" and insert "as respects any land in their area whether it was on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, land in respect of which rates were assessable." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment necessitated by the fact that the Bill has been amended at an earlier stage, so as to render the material date for ascertaining whether land was or was not agricultural land, and consequently was or was not assessable to rates, the 1st of April, 1936.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out Clause 36. The noble Earl said: This is consequential.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to add to the clause: (2) In the case of a testamentary instrument executed before the commencement of this Act, a disposition referring to tithe rentcharge shall be construed and have effect in relation to a rentcharge extinguished by this Act as if the reference had included a reference to the stock issued in respect thereof.
§ The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment to re-insert in the clause subsection (3) of Clause 7 of the Bill.
§ Power of Queen Anne's Bounty to make consequential adjustments.
§ 38. For the purpose of making adjustments, consequential upon the extinguishment of tithe rentcharge in relation to rentcharges vested in Queen Anne's Bounty by the Tithe Act, 1925, and to the collection thereof and to the emoluments of benefices and corporations to which such rentcharges were formerly attached, Queen Anne's Bounty shall have the powers specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act.
§ THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH moved to leave out" in relation to rentcharges vested in Queen Anne's Bounty by the Tithe Act, 1925, and to the collection thereof and to the emoluments of benefices and corporations to which such rentcharges were formerly attached, Queen Anne's Bounty "and insert" Queen Anne's Bounty shall give effect to the 953 provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule, and." The right reverend Prelate said: This can hardly be described as drafting, but it is not much more, because the Bill has been amended since it was first drafted and the words as they appear in the Bill do not quite fit the case. The words which it is proposed to substitute do fit the case adequately.
The next Amendment is almost drafting. The Arrears Investigation Committee will not have a staff of its own but will be served by staff of the Commission assigned for the purpose. Consequently it is necessary to provide for the proof of copies of directions given by the Committee by means of a certificate of a person properly authorised by the Committee.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to the clause: (2) In relation to any document issued by or under the authority of any Government department for the purpose of this 954 Act, the Documentary Evidence Act, 1868, as amended by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1882, shall have effect as if the Commission and the Board were included in the first column of the Schedule to the first-mentioned Act, and any person authorised to act on behalf of the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule, and the regulations referred to in those Acts included any such document as aforesaid.
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is merely a piece of machinery for enabling documents to be provable in evidence.
§ Clauses 43 to 46 agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, at the end of the definition of "agricultural land," to insert "and includes agricultural property as defined in paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of Section twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1894." The noble Lord said: This clause affects the definition of agricultural land and becomes of importance because of the fact that non-agricultural land has to pay at the rate of £105 by general agreement instead of £91 11s. 2d. which would be paid on agricultural land. It is clearly very necessary that agricultural land should be clearly defined, and if a certain deficiency in the definition shoud find its way into Clause 47 this would be rather undesirable. Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1894, which is referred to in my Amendment, reads as follows: (g) The expression "agricultural property" means agricultural land, pasture and woodland, and also includes such cottages, farm buildings, farm houses, and mansion houses (together with the lands occupied therewith) as are of a character appropriate to the property. Under the definition in the Bill "agricultural land" would exclude land which 955 is used in connection with a mansion house, and where a park is charged in connection with tithe, as the great majority of parks are, it would, I think, effectively under the Bill be reckoned as non-agricultural land and be paying tithe at the rate of £105 instead of £91 11s. 2d. I agree that that would defeat the object of the Government, and it certainly would be unfair to the rural tithe-payer.
I should like to point out that if the Amendment were accepted it would be virtually impossible to collect the tithe on October 1. If you go back to the Finance Bill of 1894 you have to apply that to all the land for which tithe is collected, and it would be an extraordinarily complicated thing to get that all ready by October 1, as would be necessary for Queen Anne's Bounty. I am not at all sure whether a house or mansion house should be regarded as agricultural land or not. But at any rate here is a definition in the Bill which has been carefully considered. It includes building and dwelling-houses occupied together with land used primarily in connection with agricultural operations, and that definition ought, I think, to be sufficient for the purpose.
I should like to say a word in support of the noble Lord and to assure the right reverend Prelate that the definition of the Bill merely refers to one Act of Parliament. He desires to refer to another. The labours of the body he mentions will not be increased. The definition which the noble Lord desires to insert is perfectly plain. Whether it is right to insert the Amendment is another matter. From a lawyer's point of view I should not like your Lordships to think that the course suggested by the noble Lord would be any more difficult than the course indicated by the Bill.
This does represent a further concession and a reduction of the flat-rate base and of the one-third remission. I rather tremble when I look at my brief and see the familiar words that the Amendment would reduce the receipts of the Redemption and Annuities Account, and that the effect of the Amendment would be to throw an additional 956 charge on the Exchequer—words which we have heard many times before. If parks are used for agricultural purposes the case is met, but if they are not being used for agricultural purposes then it is very hard to contend that there is any case for this further remission. With regard to mansion houses, they have never been taken into account, not even in 1891, for the purpose of tithe remission, and therefore this Amendment is not merely asking for increased reduction on the basis of this Act but for a further reduction than was even given under the Act of 1891. It is now proposed to introduce an entirely new definition of agricultural land into tithe legislation and that can only result in further difficulty. For that reason I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amnedment.
That is a most incredibly unsatisfactory answer. The noble Earl will be good enough to bear in mind that the inclusion of non-agricultural land in the Bill to pay £105 instead of £91 11s. 2d. was a concession over and above that which was proposed in the Royal Commission's Report. It was a concession which was accepted by the tithe-payers' representative organisation and agreed to by them, and it was regarded by them as a proper gesture to make towards meeting the difficulties of the tithe-owners. It never occurred to the tithe-payers or to those who were entitled to advise them that the Govern-men intended or even thought of including the headquarters of the property which paid tithe under the description of non-agricultural land. That suggestion would have been regarded as outrageous, as I now regard it. Mansion houses have never been titheable. The reason why I had to read out the word "mansion house" was because it occurs in the Act of 1894. What it really affects is the park lands and such like that surround the mansion house. Mansion houses have never paid tithe and they have not been liable to tithe, but they and their parks are the natural headquarters of the estate on which tithe is paid. That the latter should now be classified as non-agricultural land seems to me one of the most outrageous things I have ever listened to, and I should hope the noble Earl will withdraw what he has said.
I really cannot understand the indignation of the noble 957 Lord. It is perfectly clear that a park not in use for agricultural purposes is non-agricultural land.
For the purpose of rates and no other.
It is not agricultural land if it is not used for agricultural purposes. What is the definition of "agricultural land"? It is land used for agricultural purposes. That is a perfectly clear definition. There is a good deal of park land in this country used for agricultural purposes. Then it comes under the remission. That is a perfectly clear definition, and I really cannot see why the noble Lord is complaining.
It is not a question of remission. It is a matter that is to continue for sixty years. There is no remission about it. Non-agricultural land is going to pay tithe of £105 per £100 of commuted value, and agricultural land is going to pay £91. That makes an important difference.
I overlooked that point, but the noble Lord has also overlooked one. Not only is he asking for a reduction of the flat rate but actually for a remission under Clause 14. In both cases he is trying to get a flat rate reduction and a remission under Clause 14.
I can only say that if the noble Earl is not going to meet us on this point, it will be a lesson to landowners to be more careful in future. They will have to be more careful in acceding to requests from other authorities, and in agreeing not to resist concessions that have been asked for and given by them as a matter of grace.
I should be sorry if we disposed of this Amendment in any atmosphere that left strained feelings in any quarter of the House, most of all in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who has been so very helpful, to us so far in the passage of this Bill. I do not intend to restate the arguments of the noble Earl. I think myself they were well-founded, and I think there is perhaps some misunderstanding between the noble Lord and my noble friend beside me. I shall undertake to have the point examined again between now and Report. I do not think I can meet my noble friend, but I will have the matter inquired into.
I am glad that my noble friend is willing to try. That satisfies me completely, and I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
The Amendment standing in my name is a purely drafting Amendment. The proper expression is "in" and not "under".
The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments.
§ Deductions from Gross Annual Value of a Tithe Rentcharge for Determination of Amount of Compensation.
§ Provided that no deduction shall be made under this paragraph in the case of a rentcharge if the land tax in respect thereof was redeemed before the twenty-sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-six.
§ 5. In the case of a rentcharge which was subject to a lease, or was held in trust for persons entitled in undivided shares, immediately before the appointed day, the deduction in respect of rates shall be such amount, calculated by reference to sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of this Part, as the Commission may determine to be just having regard to the circumstances.
§ 6. In respect of losses in collection, of remissions, and of the benefit resulting in relation to security of income from the replacement of the rentcharge by stock, a sum equal to one-twentieth of the amount of the rentcharge.
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved, in the proviso to paragraph 2 of Part I, to leave out "was" and insert "has been". The noble Earl said: This is the first of three Amendments which I am moving from the same point of view as I moved the first Amendment this afternoon, in the hope of getting some slight lubrication of the position from the point of view of the lay tithe-owners, in whom I am so much interested. The object of the Amendments in one sentence is to preserve for a reasonable time the existing right to redeem Land Tax. I need not remind all your Lordships, out I ought perhaps to remind some, that Land Tax is now assessed on a quotum fixed on the parish, and under the law at present Land Tax can be redeemed at twenty-five years' purchase. But under this Bill, to arrive at the tithe-owners' compensation, the Land Tax is deducted from the gross annual value, with the result that the tithe-owner loses thirty-three and one-third years' purchase for what the law says is only worth twenty-five. Further than this, as the law stands, redemption reduces the quotum 960 by the amount of the tax redeemed. This Bill does not do so, so that though the tithe-owner will have to pay an extravagant price to redeem, the Land Tax will not be extinguished. Therefore, the assessment of the rest of the parish will be raised by the amount of the tithe, and the Treasury will continue to collect the tax from the tithe-owner if he happens to be, as he often is, an owner of land in the parish.
§ I do not think there is any justification for this state of affairs, and the obvious remedy is to allow tithe-owners to redeem the Land Tax now. Why should they be deprived of their rights under the general law? It may be possible, from the point of view of the finance of the Bill, for something to be done reasonably soon to meet the circumstances brought about by the Bill. At any rate, the tithe-owners should have reasonable notice. We did not know until this Bill was introduced of this intention by His Majesty's Government, and this is really retrospective legislation. I would remind your Lordships that when the White Paper was issued in February, full notice was given that tithe, was no longer to be redeemed, but redemption of Land Tax was not mentioned in the White Paper at all, and the tithe-owners therefore thought they had a perfect right to deal with the situation. It is not, I submit, unreasonable that this right should be preserved to them until the date I have mentioned in my next Amendment—1938. That is the whole case for this Amendment.
I should like to detain your Lordships for a very few moments with a few observations in support of the noble Earl. As a lawyer I can add nothing to the lucidity of his explanation. It simply comes to this. Under the general law tithe-owners, like other people, can redeem their Land Tax by paying twenty-five years' purchase—that is to say, they can get 4 per cent. on their money. This Bill, no doubt inadvertently, takes away 8 per cent. of that privilege by taking away from them the power to redeem. In order to satisfy the Land Tax, it takes thirty-three and one-third years' purchase of the Land Tax on the tithe. I make out if the arithmetic is 961 right—I do not think the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, will question the arithmetic—that that means that the Government will in that respect do what they do not want to do, make an 8 per cent. profit out of the transaction. That does not seem to me to be right. But I want to make a submission on rather wider grounds. The colleges of Oxford and Cambridge are vitally interested in tithe, and inasmuch as that has been going on since the date, I suppose, of Henry VIII their interest has no clerical taint attached to it.
The point is this. I am told that there are several colleges in Oxford and Cambridge to which this will make a difference of the amount which will provide a scholarship a year. As one who went to Oxford simply on the strength of scholarships, and but for them I should not have the privilege probably of addressing your Lordships now, I do ask your Lordships to pay attention to the rights and claims of the educational endowments of the Universities or which this tithe forms part.
This is a very difficult matter, and I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has made the contribution to its discussion that he has. He will, I hope, be willing to admit that I am not wholly disinterested in the cause of education, and that I am fully alive and anxious, to the limit of my power, to try to meet the difficulties that he and my noble friend, who has spoken for the Oxford colleges, have in mind. It is perhaps not quite irrelevant to remind your Lordships that so far as the matter of interest in education may be treated in isolation His Majesty's Government, in conformity with all other Governments for a long period of years, have shown their real interest in University education by grants on a very large scale indeed to the Universities, through the University Grants Committee, which, directly or indirectly, help the causes that the noble and learned Lord has at heart. I say that because it is well to remind ourselves that the Universities and tithe-owning colleges, while their interests are naturally of great importance, are not, and cannot be, the only interests that under 962 this Bill we have to try to consider and to treat with such measure of equity as we can.
I want to say a word if I may about this very complicated question of mathematics that has been referred to. It is a matter on which I think it is important we should see quite clearly what the actual facts are. Under the Land Taxes Acts as they exist to-day, a Land Tax payer, as has been truly said, is able to redeem his liability on the basis of twenty-five years' purchase. That being so, it will be evident to your Lordships that, as this tithe extinguishment scheme is based on the interest rate of 3 per cent., it would obviously be to the financial advantage of tithe-owners to redeem their Land Tax by paying twenty-five years' purchase and by that means increase the amount of redemption stock that they would hold by a sum 33⅓ times the amount of the Land Tax. They would thus, if I understand the problem correctly, gain a capital amount to the extent of 8⅓ years' purchase of the Land Tax. I do not think that is the intention of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, nor, I think, would it be an intention that would commend itself to your Lordships. If they made that gain the loss would of course fall upon the Exchequer.
The noble Earl who moved the Amendment spoke with considerable strength, if I heard him aright, as to the lack of warning that had been given to those who might be affected by these provisions. As a matter of fact in the White Paper that he referred to and in which I think he said that no warning sufficiently explicit was given to such persons, it was stated quite clearly by the Government, and it was stated for this purpose, that they could not view with indifference arrangements which may be made for the voluntary liquidation of the assets in the interval before statutory effect is given to the scheme. Your Lordships will recognise that the plain purpose of that warning was to protect the position having regard to the fact that the whole scheme was financially based on figures which were in turn based upon the charges that then existed on the various kinds of tithe rentcharge.
Further than that, there is the action taken by the Government, because, when the White Paper had been issued, it was 963 brought to the notice of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was some doubt in the minds of tithe-owners as to whether that warning was or was not intended to be applicable to redemption of Land Tax, and accordingly, on the 9th April, a question was asked in another place to which the following answer, which perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read, was given: The proposals set out in the White Paper…provide for the issue to tithe-owners of an amount of stock determined by reference to the net amount of tithe rentcharge after deduction, inter alia, of Land Tax on the existing basis. I emphasise those words. It is the intention that the forthcoming legislation should provide for the issue of stock on this basis, and that the amount of stock to be issued to a tithe-owner should not be increased by reason of his having redeemed Land Tax after the issue of the White Paper. With all respect, I submit that the words could hardly be more plainly stated than that, and that tithe-owners have had perfectly adequate notice of the line which would be taken in the Bill with regard to this matter.
There is perhaps one other thing that I might usefully add. The purpose of the compensation given under the Bill for the extinguishment of tithe rentcharge is in order to try and yield to tithe-owners an annual income equal to the income which, if there was no scheme of extinguishment, they would have obtained from a tithe rentcharge of the new, revised, gross annual value after making allowances for the improved security represented by the change to a Government guaranteed stock. If tithe-owners were allowed to redeem their Land Tax between now and 1938, as my noble friend suggests, with a view to increasing the amount of stock to be issued to them, the result of course would be to give the tithe-owners a greater net income from the stock, which my noble friend wants, and also a greater income than would be received from tithe rentcharge even if it had been freed from Land Tax, and in the absence of increased payments by landowners would again result in a loss on the scheme and therefore a liability on the general taxpayer. It would further be likely to involve: delay in getting the whole scheme working, inasmuch as until 1938 the position would 964 be left uncertain, and the arrangements would be for that reason impossible to apply. I hope that my noble friend will not press the Amendment.
The noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches, Lord Roche, made a charge that the Government are going to make 8 per cent. out of this. My noble friend the Leader of the House has neither said how pleased he is to hear that nor disclaimed that that is a fact.
If my noble friend desires an answer to that, the answer would be that I am surprised to learn it, and if it were true nobody would be more pleased because it would enable the introduction of the Bill under which it is hoped to make further remission possible at an earlier date than I anticipated.
I need not say how very disappointed I am at the answer of the noble Viscount. It almost colours the atmosphere as regards further Amendments. I know that Parliament does make grants to the Universities but it makes no grants of any kind to any college. Therefore the mitigation which he suggests on that point does not apply in this case. The noble Viscount quoted a reply given in the House of Commons which I think does entitle me to say that it was pardonable for three months that a number of people should imagine they had a right to redeem Land Tax. The Government found out that some people were contemplating redeeming Land Tax, and this Bill has stopped them. I am only quoting rumours, but I believe the rumours to be true. I believe one person who intended to do so was Mr. Keynes. For once in a way he was not the favoured child of the Government. I will not trouble your Lordships to divide, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
(bb) none of which was on the said first day of April agricultural land."
§ The noble Earl said: I think we can picture—at any rate I picture to myself—what happened when some mysterious person set to work to devise the scheme on which this is founded. When it came to proposing what amount of stock the tithe-owner was to receive in compensation the first thing he said was "Let us get a nice low average." For that reason the War years were excluded. The second thing he considered was how much less the tithe-owner should receive because he no longer had to pay rates. He said in that case "Let us take the highest years, 1934, 1935 and 1936." Those were the years when the rates were full of swollen expenditure as the result of the War. So War results were excluded when they tell in favour of the tithe-owner, but they are included when they tell against him, That is not fair. I therefore move that there should be taken into calculation the rates of the last three years in the eighty years period which has been suggested by the Royal Commission. I have here a chart showing the amount of rates paid in the case of my own college. They fluctuated very little from 1900 to 1915, but from 1916 to 1918 they went up with a rush and since 1918 they have been consistently higher than before the War.
§ So much for the figures. After all, it is common knowledge that the War has brought into being a number of new things which are being financed out of the rates. I can think of two possible answers and perhaps can save time if I try to anticipate them. I shall be pointed to the evidence given before the Commission. In 1925—I am sure the noble Viscount who leads the House will remember this—the Government recognised the injustice of fixing an arbitrary figure for tithe but leaving the rates unfixed. Therefore he as Minister of Agriculture made a concession, which was at the time very much appreciated, that only two-thirds of the rates were deducted in computing the redemption value of the tithe. In their evidence, witnesses from Oxford offered to forgo this concession as part of a scheme which retained tithe at £105. The Commission accepted the offer to forgo but reduced the tithe from £105 to £91 11s. 2d. I have been informed this afternoon that this point appeared in a Memorandum submitted to the Commission but that they 966 never examined witnesses viva voce and asked why they had made this voluntary offer. It is now abolished. That is the first point I would urge in pointing out that some such Amendment as this is necessary.
§ The second thing that I may be told is that there would be difficulties in ascertaining the rates in 1914, 1915 and 1916. I have here a complete list of the rates paid by Christchurch and New College, Oxford. The list was asked for on Thursday afternoon and arrived in London by the first post on Friday morning. I think the case may be summarised by saying that what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. I beg to move.
I most sincerely hope that for the sake of the colleges at Oxford, and indeed at Cambridge, an absolute refusal will not be given to this Amendment. I cannot help feeling generally that the tithe-owners have had a very poor compensation given them, but in this particular instance I should like to speak for my own College of Christchurch. That, I believe, will be harder hit that anybody else. I am perfectly certain that the noble Viscount is not one of those persons who have a perverted conscience which would make him deal more hardly with Oxford colleges because he is Chancellor. I believe that if he considers this proposal on the merits, he will see the justice of it. I know the great complications of this matter, and I do not suggest that he should accept these words, but I do ask him to keep an open mind before he comes to the Report stage, and if his mind should be closed I hope the noble Earl who moved this Amendment will divide.
I certainly am not insensitive either to the just claims of Christchurch or to the wider claims of Oxford. The noble Earl who moved 967 this Amendment did so, as he always does, with great persuasiveness and with a great array of reason. I should like him to take it from me that in the motives that he attributed to the Treasury he was, as I shall hope to be able to show in a moment, less than just to those who devised the scheme. Here again I cannot help thinking that there is a little misunderstanding in the minds of some as to the precise operation of the words in the Schedule and of the scheme on this point.
Let us be quite plain about what the proposal is. The proposal made by my noble friend is that the reduction for rates in the case of all tithe rentcharge, except that which is vested in Queen Anne's Bounty under the 1925 Act, issuing out of land which was on April 1, 1936, agricultural land, should be fixed on the average poundages for the years 1914 to 1916 instead of the years 1934 to 1936. The deduction for rates in the case of land which on April 1, 1930, was non-agricultural land would be on the basis of average poundages of rates for the years 1934 and 1936, and I am advised that the difference between those two figures—between the average poundages over the whole country for those two periods—is as near as may be 4s., the earlier period 1914 to 1916 being, of course, the lower of the two. If that reduced rate of poundage be applied over the whole country to all tithe rentcharge except Queen Anne's Bounty, and an allowance be made of half in the case of the Welsh Benefice tithe, the result would be that were the Government to accept this Amendment; we should be involved in an increase of the Redemption Stock by approximately £3,600,000, taking one-twelfth of the total tithe rentcharge affected as issuing from non-agricultural land. The noble Earl can estimate as well as I can the consequences of that immense increase in the stock amount.
The noble Earl states with great force, as justifying his proposal, that there is an evident injustice involved in the fact that as the gross annual value taken for the purposes of this scheme is the average of pre-War rates of payment on tithe rentcharge, it would only be equitable that the deduction for rates should be also an average of pre-War poundages. As stated by the noble Earl, that sounds 968 a very reasonable and attractive proposition, but in fact, if I may say so to him with great respect, I conceive it to be founded upon a fallacy, for this reason. The object of the whole calculation upon which we are engaged is to endeavour to arrive at what will be the tithe-owner's future perpetuity net income from tithe rentcharge, and it is quite evident that that income would not in fact depend upon any calculation of pre-War poundages, but upon what calculations and estimates we can make of what are going to be the poundage rates in the future. It is quite obvious that the best guide we can get to the future rate poundages are the rate poundages which have prevailed in recent years, of which we have taken the average rate.
Lastly—and this is a small point, though I think it is not unworthy of mention—I do not think it is really a reasonable proposition to adopt, as the basis of the deduction for your rates from a gross annual value of tithe rentcharge of £91, the rates calculated on average poundage that was current when the gross annual value of tithe rentcharge on the basis of the seven-year average of corn prices was only £78. For these reasons, which I do not think are bad reasons, I would hope that the noble Earl will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment. I have another note on my paper, but in view of what the noble Lord has said I am not sure that it is worth mentioning. My attention has been drawn to the fact that it might, in a good many cases, be difficult actually to discover the official records of the rates as they were levied in 1914, 1915, and 1916, more especially having regard to the fact that, in the rural districts, the then acting authorities have in many cases been abolished. In view, however, of what the noble Earl has said on that point, I do not lay much weight on that suggestion, although I am not sure that it might not be more difficult than he has been led to suppose.
§ THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH moved, in paragraph 5 of Part I, after "day," to insert "or which was vested for an interest less than a fee simple in possession in Queen Anne's Bounty by the Tithe Act, 1925." The right reverend Prelate said: This Amendment is intended to bring under the rating provisions what I believe the Bill intends to 969 be brought under them. Except by such an Amendment as this, they may slip out. There are certain tithe rentcharges subject to leases, and certain others held by trustees in favour of owners of benefices. Those are met by the words of the Schedule. There are, however, a certain number of trustees who hold the tithe in favour of benefices on some such terms as these: "Unless and until the Church be disestablished." That phrase does not, in the legal phrase, confer an interest in fee simple in possession vested in Queen Anne's Bounty. Such tithes would slip out unless they were brought in under this Amendment. The Amendment is therefore that the same provision as regards rates should apply to these rentcharges as apply to ecclesiastical rentcharges in general.
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved, in paragraph 6 of Part I, to leave out "amount" and insert "gross annual value." The noble Earl said: This is the last of the three Amendments which I move, hoping to get some small sympathy for the Oxford colleges and those which do similar work. I now move this, which I think is a very strong case for something being done. I move to leave out "amount" and insert "gross annual value," with consequential words later on. I construe the word "amount" here as meaning "commuted amount" and the object of my Amendment is to have the £5 deduction for improvement of security calculated on the net income of the tithe-owner after deducting rates, Land Tax and cost of collection, and not on the nominal commuted amount of the tithe rentcharge. It is obvious that the tithe-owner gets no improvement in respect of that part of his tithe which goes to other persons.
§ Your Lordships will notice that the Commission recommend that having regard to the fact that the tithe rentcharge would theoretically be easier to collect and be better secured if the gross annual value were £91 11s. 2d. instead of £105 per cent., we think that it would be sufficient that a deduction of £5 per £100 tithe rentcharge (par value) were made from the income yielded by the Government security. 970 Then the tables show what they mean, and this is what is meant. This £5 is a fixed figure taken off the value for compensation of every £100 of commuted value of tithe rentcharge, irrespective of the net income which the tithe-owner gets. Thus the incumbent after deducting rates and costs of collection and Land Tax from the £91 11s. 2d. to which the £100 is reduced, has a net income of £81 12s. 6d., from which £5 will be taken, but the lay tithe-owner after the same deduction has only £56 19s. 9d., say the Commission, and from that also this £5 is deducted. That is to say, for this so-called improvement of security 6½ per cent. is deducted in the case of the incumbent, and 8¾ per cent. is deducted in the case of the lay tithe-owner.
§ No reason has been given why the lay tithe-owner's security is improved more than the ecclesiastical, and this Amendment puts them both on the same footing It is a fair footing, and one which will bring about that the Government will provide the same price in two parallel cases in perhaps the same parish. Again, we have been told that this is in accordance with Mr. Keynes' evidence, but I would remind the Government that they have discarded some 95 per cent. of what he suggested. I would point out that Mr. Keynes' 12 per cent. and 10 per cent. included the cost of collection as well as the improvement of security, and that at the time when he gave his evidence Queen Anne's Bounty was claiming cost of collection at 3 per cent., whereas the cost in the case of lay tithe was put at 5 per cent.—hence the 2 per cent. difference. The main point is that Mr. Keynes always made the deduction with tithe at £105, which he claimed should not be altered. The Government having decided upon £91 11s. 2d., Mr. Keynes' evidence is of course inappropriate. It is quite unjust that this large sum should be taken off in these circumstances, and I beg to move.
I think that what the noble Earl is asking is perfectly clear. The object of this and the consequential Amendment is to reduce the deduction in respect of improvement of security from £5 per £100 tithe rentcharge par value to 5 per cent. of the net annual 971 value of the tithe rentcharge, which in the case of a lay tithe-owner would average about £52, and in the case of a benefice tithe rentcharge would be about £76 12s. 6d. The amount that is to be deducted for improvement of security would therefore be reduced by the Amendment in every case, but, as the noble Earl has said, the reduction would be greater in the case of the lay tithe-owner. It might be thought from this that there is something to be said for a proposal to base the amount charged for improvement of security on the income which the tithe-owner gets from, the tithe rentcharge, so that the greater the income the more would be charged for securing it, but the Royal Commission in paragraph 105 of their Report explained that this deduction was recommended in view of the fact that an income from a Government security is not liable to diminution by bad debts and statutory or voluntary remissions, and is not exposed to the same difficulties in collection and management.
§ Constitution, Procedure, Staff and Expenses of the Commission.
§ or voluntary remissions in respect of a unit of tithe rentcharge is exactly the same whether the tithe-owner receives a net income of £76 or £52 per £100 of the amount of the rentcharge, and it is therefore proper that the deduction should be related to the gross amount of the rentcharge and not the net income. The effect of the Amendment would actually be to increase the amount of stock that would have to be issued to tithe-owners, by an amount estimated at approximately £1,753,000, and consequently you would have to increase the sums necessary for interest on the stock and for sinking fund to redeem it. I hesitate to say, because I have said it so often, that this does bring us up against this wretched point: Where is the extra money to come from? I see that Lord Hastings is half smiling, half sighing, but it is a point which we cannot get round, however we try to juggle with the figures. That money will have to come from somewhere. It is a point which has got to be faced in the consideration of this question, and it is a reason really why, quite apart from the merits of the case, which I have tried to deal with, it is impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the paragraph?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 13.
Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.) Brentford, V. Doverdale, L.
Dufferin and Ava, M. St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp. Hutchison of Montrose, L.
De La Warr, E. St. Just, L.
Feversham, E. Bayford, L. Sandhurst, L.
Grey, E. Bingley, L. Stafford, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Cromwell, L. Templemore, L.
Munster, E. Daryngton, L. Waleran, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.] Ashton of Hyde, L. Hastings, L.
Bledisloe, V. Digby, L. Lawrence, L.
§ or desirable for the purpose of the proper discharge of their functions.
§ Before holding any such inquiry the Commission shall give such notice as appears to them best adapted for informing persons affected of the date on which and the place at which the inquiry will be held.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of paragraph 7, to insert "and 973 all persons appearing to the Commission to be interested shall be entitled to attend and to be heard by themselves or their agent." The noble Viscount said: There are very many precedents for what I propose. This indeed is quite a reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
While I have every sympathy with my noble friend I do not really think that his words are necessary, because he will observe that the wording of the Schedule is as appears to them best adapted for informing persons affected of the date on which and the place at which the inquiry will be held. It is quite evidently implicit in those words that the whole purpose of giving them such information is that they may be able to attend, and on the principle of not cumbering Acts of Parliament with unnecessary language I do not think these words should be inserted.
I would much sooner have it explicit than implicit, because this has appeared in a good many Acts, and I think these people really have the right to be represented, by themselves or by an agent. What I propose to do now is to withdraw the Amendment and get my authorities, and perhaps come here with a whole Library on Monday.
I do not want to put my noble friend to unnecessary trouble of that kind, and if he would between now and Report place himself in communication with me, I have every confidence that I shall be able to satisfy him that his words are unnecessary. If, however, I fail, I believe I could, with respect, suggest better words than his.
I am sure the noble Viscount could produce better words, and I hope that he will.
§ "1. Stock issued to Queen Anne's Bounty in respect of tithe rentcharges which immediately before their extinguishment were vested in Queen Anne's Bounty for an interest in fee simple in possession and held on account of a benefice, or were attached to a benefice for such an interest, together with any securities representing sums carried or to be carried to the sinking fund in relation to any such rentcharges under Section five of the Tithe Act, 1925, shall be held by Queen Anne's Bounty on their general corporate account, with the same powers of sale and reinvestment as if the stock or securities had been purchased by them out of moneys standing to the credit of that account, and no part of such stock or securities shall be appropriated to, or he at the individual risk of, any particular benefice.
(b) the value, as estimated by Queen Anne's Bounty, of such of the securities aforesaid as are held on account of that benefice.
§ 3. The sum appropriated to a benefice under the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph, together with any securities representing investments of sums received for redemption or merger which are held on account of that benefice under the proviso to subsection (2) of Section six of the Tithe Act, 1925, shall be applied and disposed of by Queen Anne's Bounty as money or securities in their hands appropriated for the augmentation of the benefice should by law and under the rules of Queen Anne's Bounty be applied and disposed of.
§ 4.—(1) Where any such rentcharge as aforesaid was immediately before its extinguishment charged with an annual money payment, the charge shall pass to the sum appropriated as aforesaid to the benefice: "
§ The right reverend Prelate said: This is purely domestic to Queen Anne's Bounty.
§ Certification of Annual Value of Land in Agricultural Holding.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, at the end of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2, to insert "such statement showing separately the amount of the assessment on the house and buildings and on the charged land." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of substance, and may be regarded as of very great importance. Its purpose really is to prevent the evil of what is known as "growing tithe." Normally speaking, buildings are not titheable and only land is titheable, but Clause 14 of the Bill provides a link between tithe and Schedule B, and obviously of course buildings form an important part of the assessment of Schedule B. If at the present time a Schedule B assessment, including of course the value of the building upon the land, is taken, as it will be taken under Clause 14, as the basis for the maximum liability for which a tithe-payer is due, then equally, if the Schedule B assessment increases, so also will the maximum liability of the tithe-payer increase in those cases where he would otherwise be able to claim remission.
§ In practice the owner of land who, by capital expenditure, improves the value 976 of the farm land, or by such capital expenditure maintains the value of the farm—and that, I think, is the more important point of the two—if he thereby attracts to that farm, as he presumably would, a higher Schedule B assessment, then the maximum liability of the tithe-payer would increase automatically with the increase of the Schedule B assessment. The Inland Revenue would have the means at hand of not only increasing the amount of the tax due to the Revenue under Schedule B, but of automatically increasing the amount of tithe which they would be able to collect. I think that would be a wholly undesirable combination of circumstances, entailing also a hardship upon the tithe-payer in high tithe-paying areas whom this Bill is designed to benefit. The growing tithe is not, I suppose, a matter which is familiar to many, and it so happens that this particular Amendment was neither raised nor debated in another place. It is, in a sense, quite new. Relying upon the surely obvious desire of the Government not in any way to undermine the effect of their intention in Clause 14, I am hopeful that it will be found possible to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
I wish very much the Government could accept this Amendment, but, as I see it, it is really based on a misreading of the position. The noble Lord has used the phrase, "the evil of growing tithe" as being something that has caused very great concern and resentment. I am not quite sure that that phrase, as applied to this particular question, is quite fair. It is not a question of a growing tithe as the result of expenditure in this case. What the noble Lord fears, surely, is that by virtue of money being spent on a property the remission may be reduced. The noble Lord may say: "That is all very well, but the cheque has to be paid out, and it has to be the same increased cheque whether it is actually in respect of an increase in tithe or a decrease in remission." But there is this difference—and surely it is a big difference—that the remission is based 977 on the assumption of inability to pay; of poverty. But here we are assuming on one basis or another—and the noble Lord is assuming—the ability of the owner to spend money on the property.
For what purposes does he spend money on the property? As I see it, he can only spend his money for three reasons. In the first place he might spend it on the house for amenity purposes. He might spend money on it for the purpose of increasing the rent, or he may be spending that money—and certain landlords frequently have to do this—simply in order to mantain the rental value of the holding. I do not think anyone would suggest that if he is spending it for amenity purposes he is entitled to a remission which we know to be based on poverty. I do not think any one would suggest that if he is able to get an increased rent for the holding as a result of this expenditure he should be entitled to remission. The noble Lord will say: "Ah, but in many cases we spend this money in order to maintain the rents and do nothing more." If the expenditure is simply for the purpose of rent, then Schedule B is not increased, and therefore there is no case of what the noble Lord has described as "the evil of growing tithe." For these reasons, and because I think this point of the noble Lord is based on a misconception, I very much regret the inability of His Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment.
This matter is of vital importance to landowners and tithe-payers, but the hour is so late that I do not think I would be justified in arguing the point further. But I can assure the House that this is a really vital matter, and if I can possibly get it altered in the Bill I shall do so. It will be my duty to divide the House, but if the Leader of the House would prefer that this matter should be further debated on Report, I am perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment now.
I am afraid I cannot go further on this matter, as far as the merits are concerned, than my noble friend went, but if the noble Lord were willing to withdraw the Amendment now on the understanding that he would be free to raise the matter on Report, I should be very happy to fall in with that course.
That would also give me an opportunity of reporting back, and of deciding whether we proceed with the matter or not. From that point of view it would be of great advantage to me. On this understanding I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Fifth Schedule agreed to.
The Amendment in my name is one with which I understand the Government are in agreement.
With the permission of the Committee I should like to move all the Amendments to this Schedule standing in my name en bloc.
Session and Chapter. Title or Short Title. Extent of Repeal.
6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 71. The Tithe Act, 1836. Sections fifty-seven, sixty-two, sixty-nine, seventy-seven, seventy-eight, eighty and eighty-six.
2 & 3 Vict. c. 62. The Tithe Act, 1839. Sections fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-one and twenty-eight.
3 & 4 Vict. c. 15. The Tithe Act, 1840. Sections seventeen, twenty and twenty-three.
5 & 6 Vict. c. 54. The Tithe Act, 1842. Sections three, six, seven and eight.
14 & 15 Vict. c. 25 The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851. Section four.
14 & 15 Vict. c. 50. An Act to amend an Act of the Third and Fourth Years of King William the Fourth in respect of the Assessment of Tithe and Tithe Rentcharges for certain Rates. In section one, the words "tithe rentcharges".
14 & 15 Vict. c. 104. The Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act, 1851. In Section eleven, the words "and tithe rentcharges".
17 & 18 Vict. c. 116. The Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act, 1854. In Section eight, the words "or tithe rentcharges" where they secondly occur.
23 & 24 Vict. c. 93. The Tithe Act, 1860. Sections one, two, four to nine, thirty-one, forty-two and forty-three.
32 & 33 Vict. c. 67. The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. In Section four, in the definition of "gross value", the words "and tithe commutation rentcharge, if any."
45 & 46 Vict. c. 37. The Corn Returns Act, 1882. Section ten.
49 & 50 Vict. c. 54. The Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886. The whole Act so far as unrepealed.
60 & 61 Vict. c. 23. The Extraordinary Tithe Act, 1897. The whole Act.
10 Edw. 7 & 1 Geo. 5. c. 24. The Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910. In Section thirty-nine, in subsection (2), the words "and tithe commutation rentcharge (if any)".
8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 54. The Tithe Act, 1918. Section ten.
The First Schedule so far as unrepealed.
11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 35. The Corn Sales Act, 1921. In Section two, in subsection (3), the words "and in Section ten (which relates to the application of the septennial average to the Tithe Commutation Acts)".
14 & 15 Geo. 5. c. 21. The Finance Act, 1924. In Section twelve, in subsection (1) (b), the words "and tithe commutation rentcharge, if any".
15 Geo. 5. c. 20. The Law of Property Act, 1925. In Section one, in subsection (2) (d), the words "tithe rentcharge".
In Section one hundred and ninety-one, in subsection (12), the words "tithe rentcharge or".
In Section two hundred and one, in subsection (1), the words "tithe and".
15 Geo. 5. c. 21. The Land Registration Act, 1925. In Section seventy, in subsection (1) (e), the words "tithe rentcharge".
15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 87. The Tithe Act, 1925. In Section one, subsection (1).
In Section four, subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5).
Sections six, nine and eleven.
In Section twelve, paragraphs (a) and (c).
In Section thirteen, subsections (2) and (4).
In Section twenty, subsections (3) and (4).
15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 90. The Eating and Valuation Act, 1925. In Section three, in subsection (2), the words "or tithe rentcharge" and the words "tithe rentcharge" where the last-mentioned words secondly occur.
In Section twenty-two, in subsection (1) (b), the words "and tithe rentcharge, if any'.
In Section sixty-eight, in subsection (1), in the definition of "gross value ", the words "and tithe rentcharge, if any", and subsection (2).
19 Geo. 5. c. 17. The Local Government Act, 1929. In the Third Schedule, in paragraph 2, the words "any tithe rentcharge or" where they first occur, and the words "tithe rent-or", where they secondly and thirdly occur.
20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 24. The Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930. In Section four, in subsection (1) (b) and subsection (3) (ii), the words "and tithe rentcharge (if any)"."
§ The noble Viscount said: This is really drafting. Several alterations were necessary in the Schedule in another place, and we thought it more convenient to leave out that Schedule and introduce a new one. I beg to move.
Forward to SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.

References: § 38

§ 5

§ 6
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

§ 3

§ 4