I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I indicated in Committee when we came to Clause 31 that I should require to make more extensive Amendments than we were able to do at that time, and that it would be advisable not to move Government Amendments then and the Committee accepted that course. The Clause deals with the liability of the owner of lay tithe rentcharge in respect of repairs to the chancels of churches, and makes provision how that is to be dealt with. The new Clause is in substitution for Clause 31, which I shall later move to omit. It does not depart at all in principle from the present Clause, but is an improvement on it. It has to be read in conjunction with a Schedule which will be moved later. Clause 31 originally provided that the diocesan authority or the representative body, as the case might be, would be entitled to a charge on the stock issued in respect of the amount necessary to provide for the repair of chancels. The new Clause provides that the stocks shall be handed over to the authority concerned, that is, the diocesan authority or the representative body. That is obviously a more satisfactory method than continuing the charge upon the stock. The second point is that the tithe-owner will only be liable to pay a proportionate part of the cost of chancel repairs having regard to the amount of tithe rentcharge owned by him for which he is to receive stock. That is a point of obvious justice, that the Church should not be able to make a demand for a liability in respect of which the tithe-owner is not receiving a sum.

The third point to which I wish to draw attention is that provision is being made for the apportionment of the liability to repair where the tithe rentcharges in the district are owned by different persons. That is a very desirable change. The fourth point of difference is that it is made clear in the new Clause that any existing liability for the repair of chancels which attaches to the ownership of land in which tithe rentcharge was merged under the Act of 1839 or Clause 21 of the Bill, remains unaffected. The provision that the tithe owner shall bear only a proportionate liability was inserted because, under the law as it stands, it is possible for the Church authorities to recover the total cost of the repair and insurance of the chancel of the church from the owner of a small portion of the original commuted tithe rentcharge where the balance is in other hands. It is not long since the Court of Appeal drew attention to this fact and stated that Parliament should put the matter right, and I ask Parliament to do so to-day. The Schedule deals merely with the machinery for the handing over to and vesting in the Church authorities of the stock required to meet the amount of the liability to repair. If the House desires a further explanation, I shall be ready to give it, but the points are highly technical and we have a long programme before us. Unless anyone wishes for a further explanation I should, perhaps, commend the Clause to the House, and ask that we may be allowed to get on to the further stages of the Bill.

Can we have any estimate of what the capital sum would amount to, the income of which will be sufficient to provide insurance against fire?

I am afraid I could not give that information. Clearly it would vary very greatly as between church and church. It could only be done by careful investigation on the spot of each particular building, running into hundreds throughout the country. The Clause does not alter the liability. It merely puts it into a definite form.

The Clause has been on the Paper only since yesterday morning, and it is very complicated. As far as I can see, it covers the view that I and my friends put forward, but I think we must reserve the right to try to get Amendments moved in another place if after careful examination such Amendments appear to be necessary. I should like to know, however, whether there is any right under which a landowner can compound for a lump sum to pay off his liabilities.

I think the Clause fairly meets our views except on one point. A tithe-owner may have spent a great deal of money in repairing the chancel. I suppose that that would be taken into account by the Commission, and that he would not be tied down by having an average charge in addition to the amount he had spent, which might have been a matter of hundreds of pounds. Such a charge should be taken into account, and should be considered in any instructions to the Commission upon chancel repairs.

I can only speak again by the leave of the House. In the first case, it would be possible certainly for a landowner to comopund, and with regard to the second point, obviously money spent upon putting the chancel into repair would be taken into account when the liability was being fixed.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out "is on that day," and to insert "was on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six."

At present the appointed day, namely, 2nd October, is the date on which the differentiation as regards the gross annual value of tithe rentcharge and the rate of redemption annuity as between agricultural and non-agricultural land takes effect. The usual test in practice to decide whether land is agricultural or non-agricultural is whether or not it is de-rated. The beginning of the rating year is 1st April, and, therefore, for administrative reasons, it is desirable that the beginning of the rating year should be taken as the date for this purpose. But it is even more desirable than that. The House will realise that the probability of the tithe-payer getting relief on 1st October is a very considerable advantage and concession, but tithe is paid in arrear, and therefore tithe charges run from 1st April. It is therefore clear that the date for the differentiation between non-agricultural and agricultural land should be 1st April and not 1st October. There are two reasons. One is founded on the rating year and the other is that tithe charge is accruing now, and, therefore, I suggest that, for those two reasons, 1st April is a better date and more favourable to the tithe-payer than 1st October.

The Minister will remember that in Committee the problem of the criteria for the division between agricultural and non-agricultural land was raised. Though I have no objection to the present Amendment, the Minister will realise that it does not at all meet the points raised in Committee. I should be glad of his assurance that the consideration which he promised to give to this subject will still be given, and that the acceptance of this Amendment does not mean that the matter is at this moment closed and will not be capable of further consideration in another place.

This is simply administrative and a concession to the tithe-payer, and I think that it should be accepted. It does not prejudice any other considerations.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out "is on the appointed day," and to insert "was on the said first day of April."

I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"(4) No stock shall be issued in respect of any tithe rentcharge which has not been collected and for the recovery of which no proceedings have been taken during the five years previous to the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-six."

In this Amendment I am concerned mainly with the very small tithe-payer. One of the most savage features of this Bill, and certainly one which will be most unpopular on the country side is that of the provisions which stiffen up the method of collecting tithe rentcharge and which convert for the first time tithe rentcharge from a charge upon land to a personal debt recoverable from the individual, in respect to which he might, in certain circumstances, be sent to prison. When you couple that fact with the compulsory, powers of redemption for small tithe charges, there is a serious danger. There may have been cases of small tithe-payers where in the past it has not been worth while to collect the money. In the case of a large tithe-payer there is a great deal to be said for the force of authority having such power as may be at its disposal to ensure that payment is made, but should the Church be given the benefit of these increased powers in order that they may receive money which they would not otherwise have received? I think that only quite small sums are involved one way or the other, but a small sum to a small man creates just the same sense of grievance and injustice as a large sum to a large man.

Where there have been small sums owing and it has not been thought worth while to collect those sums, at any time, within the last five years, it will arouse great feelings of injustice if this Bill comes along as a sort of steamroller to squeeze money out of these small people, and they find that these charges against them are not only revived, but that they are revived in a form which they cannot possibly resist, and are very likely compulsorily redeemed. To extort from these people charges away in the past amounting to a shilling or two shillings a year might run into several pounds and be a very severe burden indeed. I would ask the Minister in general to explain to us what is to happen if, in the course of the tearing up of the whole of the tithe problem, old and long forgotten tithes are discovered. What is to happen in that case? Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point?

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Member realises that he is here dealing with the question of stock and not with the question of annuities. In regard to the question of stock he wishes to know what would happen in the case of long forgotten tithe rentcharge. It will be the duty of the Commission to examine most carefully and meticulously whether tithe rentcharge is owing and to find out whether the tithe is statute barred. The carrying out of that duty will to some extent prevent any long forgotten tithe being unjustly claimed again. During the last few years there has been considerable difficulty in getting tithe in, and we all know the reason. In many cases certain tithe-owners have been compassionate towards the tithe-payers and have not claimed it, and it would be most unfair if as a result of a tithe-owner adopting that generous attitude because the tithe-payer could not pay he should, because of this Amendment, be deprived of his annuity for life and lose forever the stock which he would receive in respect of that annuity. The hon. Member stipulates a period of five years. That is perhaps a long time. I am sure that the last thing he would desire would be that the tithe-owner who has treated his tithe-payer fairly and generously should be penalised in any way. The hon. Member is concerned for the small tithepayer, but I can assure him that there is no intention that the Commission in collecting these small sums in the future should press unduly on the small tithepayer; for one reason, the cost of collection would not make it worth while. The hon. Member would not wish to produce a state of affairs which would cause great injustice to a man who has treated his tithe-payer decently and fairly in a very difficult time. I hope, therefore, that he will not press the Amendment.

After what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The first Amendment that I select stands in the name of the Minister of Agriculture.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out "is on the appointed day," and to insert "was on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six."

I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out "is," and to insert "was on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six."

I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, at the end, to insert:

"(5) The Commission and the Board shall so far as practicable make use of the services of such person or persons as may have been employed in the collection of tithe rentcharge."

This Amendment is designed to assist those who have been involved in the collection of tithe under the Act of 1925, many of whom have been put to much labour and expense in setting up an efficient machinery of collection, This effort and expenditure were incurred and justified in the expectation that once the spadework had been accomplished there would be a long term of years of comparatively straightforward collection which would recoup them for the expenditure. Now Parliament is altering the whole machinery of collection of tithe, and therefore the expectation of the collectors under the Act of 1925 has been falsified. The Amendment is purely permissive and involves no obligation upon anyone. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept it.

I beg to second the Amendment. A large number of people have been employed in collecting tithe, and it is very hard that they should be thrown out of work in consequence of action taken by this House, over which they have no control. They probably have no other work to which they can turn. They are a highly skilled and very deserving class. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment, especially as there is no way in which these men can be compensated. In many cases where people lose their work owing to the action of this House they receive compensation, but in this case there is no personal compensation.

I support the Amendment. I know of a number of people past middle age who will be thrown out of employment, with very little chance of being able to be employed again. It is a real hardship. I hope that means will be found for keeping them in employment.

I support the principle of the Amendment. The Minister will remember that in Committee I supported a somewhat similar Amendment which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). The Amendment is consistent with the principles we hold on this side of the House, which we have enunciated on several occasions, that where Acts of Parliament are passed which deprive individuals of their living, compensation ought to be made to them. When the collection of the annuities is taken over it will be taken over by the Inland Revenue authorities. The Inland Revenue authorities are not so conversant with the collection of tithe rentcharge as the agents who have been collecting it for many years. Hon. Members know that this is a specialised job, and I should think that the Inland Revenue authorities would be glad of some assistance from those who have been dealing with this work for many years. Apart from that, there is the principle. The professional associations, the Surveyors' Institution, the Auctioneers' Institute and others have pressed that these firms or individuals, not only the principals but those employed in the offices, should be taken over by the Inland Revenue authorities. If that were done, it would assist the Inland Revenue authorities considerably in the prompt and effective collection of the annuities. The Minister told us in Committee that it was not possible to embody such a, prevision in the Bill itself, but if it is possible for this Amendment to be accepted I hope he will accept it. It is a principle for which we have stood for many years. The number of firms and individuals who would be taken over is not large, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

I rise only to put forward one point. It may be that the phrase "persons as may have been employed" in the collection of tithe rentcharge is too wide. Would it include persons employed by everybody in connection with the collection of tithe?

Most of us would like to see people who have been employed in this work going on with it, but there is another side to the question. In many cases they may have been only on half-time work and, further, I think we should have an assurance that if the Amendment is accepted it will not be used in such a way as to add to the cost of collection. While we can agree to the principle of this proposal I do not think it should mean adding vast numbers of people to the collection of tithe when it may be possible to amalgamate the collection in many cases.

I should like to support the Amendment. The Minister in this matter has done something which I do not quite understand. He has said, in effect, that the Amendment covers exactly the things which the Government intend to do in the course of good administration and that, therefore, the Amendment is not necessary. It seems to me that the more reasonable course is for the Minister to say that as the Amendment covers exactly what the administration will in fact do, he will accept it. The Amendment does not embarrass the Minister at all and it will give encouragement to a number of people who are extremely anxious as to their fate.

I have great sympathy with the principle of the proposal, but I question whether the actual drafting would achieve the purpose. The words "may have been employed" are very wide indeed, and might cover a whole range of people who have long since ceased to be employed by anybody undertaking tithe collection. If these words could be redrafted so as to cover those people we want to retain and not all these other people, I would support it.

I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. In Committee he gave us an assurance that in good administration and efficiency he would have recourse to the services at his hand. One can have sympathy with those who may find themselves at a disservice in their employment, but there is the guarantee given by the Minister that he will use whatever services are at his hand subject, of course, to their being efficient. The danger of the words "persons who may have been employed'" has already been pointed out. If efficiency is to be the test, then these words might become very dangerous. The Minister might be over-ruled in his decision as regards efficiency if we have the words in the Clause, "persons who may have been employed." Efficiency might become a secondary consideration. After what the Minister has said in Committee, that he will have consideration for these services but that his first consideration must be efficiency, I hope he will not accept the Amendment.

It is quite natural for hon. Members to feel sympathy with any persons who because of an Act of Parliament may have their living prejudiced; and I quite appreciate that consideration. The Government have given great consideration to this matter. I think the House will agree that it is impossible to lay down rules which would impose on the Government the duty of providing either employment or compensation for any body of men who were affected in their employment by our action in this matter. I do not think it is possible to lay down rules of such wide application. I repeat the assurance I gave in Committee, that it is the intention of the Government to utilise as fully as possible the services of the firms and their employés who have for many years been engaged in this undertaking and who have acquired valuable experience. It would be foolish for the Government to do otherwise. It would complicate our task immensely if we attempted to do it without the services of these highly experienced persons. We have procured the setting up of an informal technical body to consult with us at the Ministry as to the best way of operating and carrying out the complicated provisions of this Measure. I will give the House the names of the bodies concerned—the Chartered Surveyors Institution, the Auctioneers, and Estate Agents' Institute, the Land Agents' Society, and the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents.

An hon. Member has said that the Inland Revenue will be able to replace these agents by their own servants in a comparatively short time. I can assure him that there is no such prospect. The Commission is bound to last for a considerable time. There is a great deal of work to be done, and the Commission will have to take full advantage of the experience and knowledge of persons who have been engaged in this work for so long. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) put his finger on another point. Undoubtedly if the Amendment were accepted it would involve additional cost which would have to be met by the tithepayer. The Amendment is much too wide, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), and would involve compensation to a large number of persons who really do not in any sense of the word deserve it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) said that the Amendment is of a permissive nature, but I would point out that it contains the word "shall," and when I read the words "so far as practicable," I can foresee very great difficulties in carrying it into operation. Those are minor points which I do not stress, but I would urge that hon. Members should be satisfied with the assurance which has been given and not accept the Amendment.

In view of what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, to leave out from "less," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:

"or two or more annuities amounting in the aggregate to one pound or less is or are charged in respect of land in any district or of land in that district and of adjacent land in another district, being land which is in the ownership of a single owner who does not own in the game capacity any other land in respect of which an annuity is charged situate in that district or adjacent to any of the land in respect of which that annuity or those annuities is or are charged."

In the Committee stage an Amendment was moved which, although slightly different from the one I am now moving, had a similar intention, and the Minister told us that between then and now he would reconsider the position. In order to help him to reconsider the position, we have put down this Amendment. One finds many farms where one or two fields are not in the same district, for the purposes of the Tithe Act, and it usually happens in such cases that one solitary field has a tithe which does not amount to £1. Under the Clause as it is at present. the tithe on that field would he compulsorily redeemed and the farmer would have no option but to redeem it. The Amendment says that where the tithe amounts to less than £1 in respect of land in any district or of land in that district and of adjacent land in another district, it shall be compulsorily redeemed, but not otherwise. This would mean that in the case of a farmer, for instance, who has most of his farm in one tithe district and one field in another district, he would not need to have his tithe compulsorily redeemed. This is. on the face of it, a small matter, but I assure the Minister that throughout the country he will find such cases, and if this Amendment is not accepted, real hardship will be caused to the farmers.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I know of one farm of 46½ acres which is in four different parishes.

I was very much impressed by the argument put forward in favour of this Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and by the very pertinent illustration given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland). In those circumstances, I accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, to leave out "five-sixths," and to insert "seven-eighths."

In the Bill originally the fraction was two-thirds. For Income Tax purposes the farmer could claim only two-thirds of his tithe, and one-third represented the Sinking Fund. In connection with this Bill, I have always felt that the Sinking Fund swallowed up far too big a proportion of the tithe payment, and I was very glad when the Minister changed the two-thirds to five-sixths. But when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) put forward an Amendment upstairs that it should be seven-eighths, the Minister, with the skill which he has, snubbed him so gently that he did not pursue the Amendment. Since then we have been reconsidering the matter. I am certain that what the Minister wants to do is to be absolutely fair. He has told us all along that the Treasury do not intend to make any money out of this Bill, and that the object of the fraction in Clause 13 is to represent the actual amount of the annuity that is Sinking Fund. It is not very easy to find out with mathematical accuracy the finances on which this Tithe Bill is based, but I have made an attempt to do so, taking two figures. I have taken the figure in the Government's White Paper on policy, which shows how much of the total expenditure goes to the Sinking Fund. Hon. Members will see on page 6 of the White Paper that the total expenditure which goes to sinking fund is £422,040. The total expenditure is £3,323,426. I suggest that if that is worked out, it comes to about one-ninth. One-eighth is a very fair bargain for the Minister to make, and it allows the Treasury to make a few pounds profit which we tithe-payers would be quite ready to give them on this occasion.

In case that should not be sufficiently accurate, I have tried another way and have taken the Commission's report, on page 40 of which they show how the gross annual value is split up. The figure is £91 11s. 2d., which is brought down to £76 12s. 6d., and the deduction there which would not be liable for Income Tax purposes represents £9 11s. 6d., again making a figure of between one-ninth and one-tenth. It will be noticed that there is no fraction of one-third, which the Ministry had in the Bill as drafted, or even one-sixth, as it is now. I am certain that when the Minister speaks he will be able to challenge the mathematical accuracy on my figures, because to try to elucidate exactly the fraction is like going through a labyrinth, but even allowing a margin for error, I think the seven-eighths which we suggest is reasonable. I think it will be considered all the more reasonable when hon. Members realise what is the allowance at the present time under the 1925 Act. It is £4 10s. out of £109 12s., and in that case I find no difficulty in getting the fraction, which is 23–24ths. We are asking something which represents only 21–24ths. Therefore, I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter, and while I appreciate that he has been generous not only with regard to my last Amendment, but with regard to this very point in Committee, I would remind him that our object is not merely to get generosity, but to achieve mathematical accuracy, so that the Treasury do not make a profit which they do not wish to make.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have already spoken on this subject at an earlier stage and thanked the Minister for the concession which he made previously, but we find that that concession does not go far enough. I need not follow my hon. Friend the Mover in what he said as to the actual amounts involved, but I wish to point out that the Treasury will, under the operation of this Measure, get increased Income Tax amounting to something like £160,000. It is true that from the total amount certain deductions will be made, but those deductions will be met I think, by the extra amounts received in Supertax and Death Duties and I think we may take it that the Treasury will receive, in increased Income Tax, something in the neighbourhood of the amount I have mentioned. I suggest that a portion of that money might be used for the purpose of altering this fraction from five-sixths to seven-eighths.

I think it would be a mistake to accept the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The mathematics of this question are not difficult to appreciate. The fraction of two-thirds which appeared originally in the Bill was correct in that it represented the proportion of a sixty-year annuity at the rate of interest which existed, if the annuity were one comprising principal and interest. But as it appears that the sinking fund would be accumulated free of Income Tax the Government were prepared to regard what was required for sinking fund purposes as reduced and the interest proportion as correspondingly increased. That is the way in which we came to the figure of five-sixths instead of the two-thirds originally proposed. We got from the Treasury recognition of the fact that, as the sinking fund was accumulating free of tax, the previous calculation did not apply. My hon. Friends however are now returning to the charge. They expressed their gratitude on the Committee stage and did not press the matter any further then, but having talked it over since they have reached the conclusion that it would be a very good thing to seek for a further concession on the Report stage. That is an argument which appeals to us all, but I am afraid I cannot yield to it on this occasion.

If the Minister took the original figure of two-thirds as being on a strictly actuarial basis, why did he surrender to the hon. Member and concede the five-sixths?

The case is as I have stated it. Further consideration of the matter revealed a factor which had not been taken into account in the first instance and on that factor being brought to the notice of the Treasury, the matter was readjusted accordingly. I did not give way in Committee merely to the arguments of my hon. Friend but to the rules of arithmetic and I suggest that he has not those rules in his support on the present occasion.

Is it not the case that actuarially the figure of two-thirds would represent a 40-year redemption, and that a 60-year redemption would be fairly accurate in relation to the present figure?

Having regard to what has been said, there are one or two points on which we would like information. It is contended that the Government are likely to make some profit with regard to Income Tax, and I understand that questions of Supertax and Death Duties have also been introduced in that connection, but we have had no reply from the Minister on that point. That suggestion opens up an interesting question. We have shown to the House on earlier stages that the Government have not adopted what are, in our view, the best recommendations of the Commission, but have drawn the Bill in such a way as to escape any charge at all upon the Treasury. We now understand that the Treasury are actually going to make a profit out of the Bill on some other accounts. If that be so, I feel it is all the harder that those who are trying to represent the views and grievances of tithepayers should have been precluded at other stages, from moving for the redress of those grievances, because of the terms of the Financial Resolution. The Minister ought to make it clear whether the statements we have heard are correct or not. Are the Treasury going to make a profit? If so, I do not see how the Minister can reasonably resist the suggestion of a further concession.

It is a little difficult to go back on these matters which have already been explained fully to the House and the Committee. As I have said, the unprecedented step was taken by the Treasury of allowing in the contribution which it is making under the Bill, for any improvements of the revenue which might accrue under other heads. That was made clear in the Second Reading debate, in Committee and in the White Paper. Is there any further point which the right hon. Gentleman would like to have made clear? I did not understand what his further argument was.

All I want is a plain "Yes" or "No" to the question: When these adjustments have been made, are the Treasury going to make a profit on Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties?

My right hon. Friend has held high office, and he knows that to forecast what may happen 10, 20 or 30 years hence about Income Tax, Supertax or Death Duties—especially if he and his right hon. Friends come into power—is quite beyond my power. An allowance has been made in respect of any surplus which will accrue to the Treasury as a result of these schemes. An estimate has been made, and we have taken care in Amendments and new Clauses which I have myself moved, to ensure that any improvement in the finances of the scheme, as a result of the changes made, should inure to the benefit of the tithe-payers. I think I have dealt with the specific point raised in the Amendment and as to the general point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite we have, as I say, made allowance under the Bill for any improved receipts by the Treasury, but the question which he asks involves a calculation which would be beyond my power and would indeed be out of order for any Minister to try to make at, this Box.

In view of the mathematical explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 15, line 7, at, the end, to insert:

"(5) Where an annuity is charged in respect of land part of which constitutes, or is comprised in, an agricultural holding the appropriate authority may, if so requested by the owner of the land, apportion the annuity as between that part and the residue of the land, and the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section ten of this Act shall have effect as if that part and the residue of the land had been in different ownership."

This Amendment is the reinsertion, in a more appropriate place, of words which were left out of Clause 10.

I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, to leave out "date on which that money is to be paid," and to insert "redemption date."

All the Amendments on this Clause, with the exception of one, arise out of the acceptance in Committee of an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). They are to provide for recovery of redemption money, not in a single payment as originally in the Bill, but by instalments.

On a point of Order. Are we now at liberty to discuss the whole of these Amendments?

I understood that all the Amendments hang together with the exception of one. Is that so?

Yes, Sir. The one exception is that on page 17, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (11), and to insert a new Sub-section in its place.

May I ask one thing on the administration of this Clause as it would be amended? It is true that there is now power to redeem compulsorily tithe under £1. In the Tithe Act of 1878 there was power for an impartial referee to see that redemption was carried out on terms reasonably fair to the tithe-payer, and particularly to the tithe-payer of small means, and I believe that on many occasions they have refused to allow a redemption to go through on the ground of hardship. May I ask the Minister if anybody is going to carry out that function, as it were a referee between the Commission, first of all, and later on the Treasury, on the one side, and the tithe-payer on the other? I have grave fears as to what will be the result if the Commission and later on the Treasury make large-scale compulsory redemption orders in the case of all tithes under £1, and I would ask the Minister if he will do his best to see that in the first year or two the procedure of compulsory redemption is only undertaken gradually and somewhat experimentally. I think we might get into very grave difficulties if the Commission of the Treasury went for all the small payments along the lines of compulsory redemption.

I appreciate that there are provisions for the extinguishment of small tithes which are not worth the trouble of collecting, but I question very much whether the Treasury will not be tempted to ignore that procedure in favour of the compulsory redemption procedure, because whereas it may not be worth while to collect 2s. 6d. a year for 60 years, it might seem to the Treasury to be very well worth while to collect, I believe it would be, some £3 15s. as a lump sum. Under the present law, where a tithe-payer would be paying perhaps some 5s. a year as tithe and some 2½d. a year as redemption, there are many small tithe-payers who will resent that 2½d. They will say, "I do not mind paying my tithe, but why should I pay something so that somebody else in the far distant future should benefit?" These small land-owners, generally allotment-owners, do not understand that the payment is gradually increasing the value of their land in the open market by each payment removing a small part of the charge from it. They are not interested in their land 60 years hence, and I think that very great discontent will be produced if these small people are asked to pay compulsory redemption even by four, five, or six instalments. I would therefore ask the Minister, in the interests of peace and good feeling on the countryside, that the compulsory redemption procedure should be undertaken by the Commission and afterwards by the Treasury very gently, very gradually, and in such a way as will give an opportunity for individual cases to be brought up to the Minister for consideration and not overwhelmed in a flood of compulsory redemption orders, where it will not be possible to give proper consideration to each case.

I have here a report of a case where an old couple, aged 73 and 79, living on the old age pension had their furniture thrown into the front garden and sold in order to redeem a tithe amounting to £2 17s. 6d. I am sure that such action is not the wish of my right hon. Friend, and I hope he will do something to give effect to the desire expressed by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) for some kind of referee in such cases.

I quite appreciate the point raised by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), and I think he may take it as certain that this administration will be sympathetically carried out by the Commission. With regard to the actual case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton), under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, it will be possible, as it is not possible now, for the Commission to get its redemption money by instalments and not in a lump sum, so as to spread it over weeks, or months, or years in order to prevent such a bad occurrence as that which he mentioned. In Committee we went through this Clause meticulously in order to make it easier for those who might be called upon to redeem. I do not think it is so much a case for a referee or machinery of that kind as a case for sympathetic and kindly administration on the lines urged by the hon. Member for Barnstaple, and in view of the fact that the authority has power to postpone redemption and to ask for it by instalments, I think that ample latitude is given. I think the House can rest assured that there will be sympathetic and wise administration.

I beg to move, in page 17, line 14, to leave out Subsection (11), and to insert:

"(11) The appropriate authority may, on the application of the person by whom any sum is paid in respect of the redemption of an annuity grant to him a certificate charging any land in respect of which the annuity was charged or any estate or interest therein with that sum or any part thereof, together with interest at such rate as the authority may determine, and a person to whom such a certificate is granted shall be entitled to a charge in accordance with the terms thereof having such priority in relation to other charges on the property charged as may be specified in the certificate."

The Clause as it stands deals with charges in favour of persons who pay redemption moneys. The object of the Clause is to enable a person who is not the owner of the whole interest in land and who discharges the land from the burden of an annuity, to recoup himself out of the land as a whole. It is quite a reasonable provision such as is commonly made in similar circumstances as, for example, where a part owner redeems land tax or pays off Death Duties. The Sub-section as it stands makes it obligatory on the appropriate authority to grant a charge which will operate over all interests in the freehold and in priority to any other interest or incumbrance. It has been pointed out that such a provision is not sufficiently elastic. It would, for example, give a long leaseholder upon whom the burden of redemption ought to fall a right to a charge over the freehold for which he could make no just claim. The Sub-section has, therefore, been recast so as to make it more elastic and to enable the appropriate authority to grant such charge as seems to them just in the circumstances.

I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that no judgment for the payment of a debt due to His Majesty under this section shall be executed and no action under sub-section (5) of this section shall be taken when—

(a) the sum due on account of an instalment of an annuity is in arrear for less than three months; and

(b) the person from whom the said sum is due shows, to the satisfaction of the court or, in the case of action under subsection (5) of this section, to the Board, that by reason only of matters connected with good husbandry he has not, at that time, funds from which to pay the sum due."

I move this Amendment because of a somewhat similar Amendment which was moved in Standing Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise). I was very anxious at that time by reason of the reply which the Minister gave in refusing to accept the Amendment. The Amendment in Committee was in these terms:

"Provided that no action for recovery shall be taken where any sum due on account of an instalment of an annuity is in arrear for less than three months."

It will be seen that my Amendment gives to the tithe-payer less in the way of rights and hampers the Treasury far less than the Amendment that was moved in Standing Committee. Some Amendment of this kind is necessary by reason of words which the Minister used in replying to the Amendment that was moved in Standing Committee. The Minister then said:

"My only difficulty is that I have to be very careful of the finance of the scheme. Any loss here, of course, falls upon the scheme, and, therefore, upon all the tithe-payers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D); 16th June, 1936; col. 132.]

That suggests to my mind that in the view of the Minister the successful finance of the scheme depends upon the prompt and immediate payment of these annuities on the date when they become due. It may be asked, why should they not be paid on the date when they are due? One answer is that they are not so paid at present. At the present time it is almost universal for three months' grace to be given. I have no objection whatever to a man being asked to pay promptly if he has the means to pay promptly, and the Minister is right in saying that if he does not pay it is an injury to other tithe-payers. But I have deep sympathy, and I am sure that all tithe-payers have sympathy with the man who is not in a position to pay on 1st April or 1st October, but who, in the natural course of good husbandry, would be in a position to pay by 1st June or 1st January.

If the Minister will look at my Amendment he will see how very little it is that I am asking for. I do not say that the Commission shall not bring proceedings in the court. They can do that and they can get their judgment, and there need be no delay in that respect. But I ask that they should not execute judgment. I ask that Income Tax collectors should not take action under Sub-section (5) in two circumstances; first of all they should not take action before the end of three months, and in order that they shall be restrained from taking action the tithe-payer must be in a position to show that he is not in funds at that moment only because of something connected with good husbandry. If he is in funds from any source he would have to pay, and if he was in a position which was fundamentally unsound, if he was on the verge of bankruptcy, he would not be able under my Amendment to extort some kind of delay from the Commission, because he would have to prove that it was only because of some matter connected with good husbandry that he was not in funds. He could not do that unless he could show that he would be in funds in a few months. He would have to say in October, "I have grain harvested but unthreshed and unsold. By the 1st January I shall have it threshed and sold and will have funds to meet the claim." Or if he was a landlord and not a farmer he would have to say, "Rent is owing to me which I cannot collect, but I shall get it in the next two months and then I can pay." In April the same arguments would apply to beasts as applied to corn in October.

What is really going to happen under this Amendment? One sees visions of any number of applications to the court and attempts to prove this and that, but what will happen is simply this: The Commissioners or the Board when they know the case of a farmer who is farming his land in the ordinary way and expecting money to come in towards the end of May or middle of June, or late in December or January, will not press him for payment until they know that he is in funds. I am asking for this Amendment very largely because the Minister indicated that the scheme is going to depend upon immediate and prompt payment. I am anxious that prompt payment should not be exacted from men who have not funds to make the payment at the moment when it, has become due but who in the ordinary course of business will have funds in two or three months' time.

I beg to second the Amendment.

There is a great deal in what the hon. Member has said. I know a good many cases where smallholders have tithe payments due on their holdings twice a year, but they are in considerable difficulty because most of the income from their holdings comes in at certain times. I have in mind particularly holders who have fruit orchards which are harvested only once a year. I hope that the Minister will consider the desirability of making collection as elastic as possible so as to suit the conveniences of the tithe payer which are not entirely in his hands.

I would ask the House to reject the Amendment because it will impose an unnecessary hardship on the tithepayer. He has already three months' grace under this Bill as long as he is under the Commission. What the hon. Member seeks to do is to place upon him a restraint which he has not at the present time. Clause 16 (3) provides, among other things, that the provisions of Section 2 of the Tithe Act, 1891, shall apply. Sub-section (1) of that Section says:

"Where any sum is duo on account of tithe rentcharge issuing out of any lands in arrear for not less than three months, the person entitled to such sum may apply …."

Clearly the Amendment would take away that right and would put upon the tithe-payer the necessity of going before the county court and proving that the delay in payment was due in some way to what the hon. Member called good husbandry. It seems to me that it was rather bad husbandry than good husbandry that he had in mind. If he were a landlord he would have to prove that he had not got in his rents, and if he had beasts to sell that he had not fattened them at the right time. The court would have to go to the farm and ascertain whether or not the beasts were appropriately fat or the grain in the stacks should have been threshed or not. That would be a serious thing and it would be unreasonable to insert this Amendment.

There is a further Amendment suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise), who makes the more general contention that in all cases both under the Commissioners and under the Board no proceedings shall be taken unless the application has been three months in arrears. That Amendment cannot apply to the time when the Tithe Commission is in charge of these affairs, because the Commission is bound by the present procedure to take no action until the three months are up. It is true that when matters come within the purview of the Inland Revenue the procedure applicable to the Commission will not apply. The Tithe Commission may for seven years and even longer be in charge of this matter, and we may leave any contingency that may arise afterwards to be determined by Parliament if and when it arises. At present the right of the tithe-payer to three months' grace is preserved under the Commission as it was before.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 1891 Act, and stated that the payer had the option to apply. To whom will he have the option to apply? To the Commission?

The Commission cannot take any procedings against him until the three months are up.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he had, under the 1891 Act, the option to apply, thereby throwing the onus on the payer.

If I said that I misled the House, but I do not think I did say it. The tithe-payer has to pay within a certain period laid down in the 1891 Act, which I have quoted. The period is three months. The rights of the payer under the 1891 Act are, as far as the Tithe Commission is concerned, preserved in this Bill.

My right hon. Friend has referred to my Amendment later on the paper, in page 18, line 41, at the end, to insert:

"Provided always that no action for recovery shall be taken where any sum due on account of an instalment of an annuity is in arrear for less than three months."

The position is that us long as the Commission remains in being the old procedure of the Act of 1891 will persist, but if and when the Commission comes to an end and the collection of the redemption annuities falls into the hands of the Inland Revenue, this three months' concession will disappear. I do not think that the fact that in two years' time—no one knows how long—there will be a change in the method of collection is any good reason why by that time the necessity for this three months' grace will have passed. Why should it have passed? One can well conceive another agricultural depression, which unhappily recurs with considerable frequency, at the time when the Inland Revenue are in charge of the collection of the redemption annuities, and it may be just as difficult for the tithe-payers to meet their payments then as it is now. I therefore regret that my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to accept my Amendment. I would remind him that when the obligation for the payment of tithe was shifted from the shoulders of the occupier to that of the landowner by the Act of 1891, Parliament went fully into this matter and decided that this three months' grace should be afforded. I can see no good reason, nor do I think my right hon. Friend has advanced one, why, if it be necessary to give three months' grace now, it will be any less necessary when the Inland Revenue has taken over the collection, and the more so as the charge, which has hitherto been attached to the land, will become attached to the person.

I have said in Committee and on the Floor of the House that the factors which are making the Bill most unacceptable in the heavily-tithed areas are those contained in this Clause. It is true that the procedure for collection divides itself into two stages. During the first stage the Commission is the body to collect and the Commission has to apply the old procedure. It is true that they cannot get any order to recover out of the land until a period of three months has expired. Equally, they cannot get an order for the personal liability until they get an order for execution personally. When they get the order they can levy distress on the land. At a later stage, when the Board of Inland Revenue take it over, they, with all the powers they have for collecting taxes, can get a personal order the day after the money becomes due. I must support the attempt to get that procedure modified and made as little burdensome as possible on tithe-payers, particularly during the period when the Commission is collecting these new annuities. The fact that the three months arrear period is preserved during the time when the Commission is in operation is something, but the moment that three months period is up if the Commission go to the court the court is bound to make an order for execution personally against the tithe-payer. Whatever the circumstances may be, the Court will have no option.

I think that the Clause should be modified in such a way as to give the court some discretion in the matter of issuing a personal order if its issue would cause great personal distress. I know that suggestions to this effect which I made in Committee were rejected, but I do beg the Minister to reconsider the position and see whether the procedure cannot be modified so that there shall be no opportunity for personal execution in cases where there ought not to be personal execution. There is the time ahead when the Board of Inland Revenue will be able to exercise all their powers of sending in a collector and selling up a home straight away, at once, and we ought to take advantage of the opportunity, when the Bill is still before us, to modify that procedure by insisting that there shall be still three months delay before any such action is taken.

After the powerful advocacy of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) I do hope that the Minister will give this matter further consideration, even if he thinks it is unwise to accept the Amendment in the form in which it has been moved by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland). I would draw attention to the opening words of the first Sub-section to this Clause 16, where it says that an instalment of an annuity payable on any due date shall be "a debt due to His Majesty." This Clause is going to alter the procedure of collection by handing it over in the future to the Board of Inland Revenue, with all the immense powers they have. Perhaps hon. Members may have had some experience of the immense powers which the Board of Inland Revenue wield, and can realise how they will be able to come down on individuals who have been very badly hit during periods of agricultural depression. The report of the Royal Commission on Tithe Rentcharge refers, on page 24, to the unpopularity of tithes and the position of the incumbent. The incumbent used to collect the tithe rentcharge, but in the majority of cases it has been transferred to Queen Anne's Bounty. The Commission say:

"On the one hand the incumbent may have been in an invidious position in claiming money from parishioners who often were not members of his Church; on the other hand he may often have been able to judge better and more sympathetically the character of his tithe-payers and the value to be attached to the claims of inability to pay."

I must say of Queen Anne's Bounty that they are not so rigorous in their methods of collection, but if this Bill becomes an Act it will be the Inland Revenue authorities who at some date in the future will collect these tithes. The Minister must be well aware of the feeling in some of the heavily-tithed areas, where agricultural depression has been very great, against having to pay tithes, and when at some later date payment of them is to be enforced by the Inland Revenue authorities the hardship will be increased. As I understand the hon. Member's Amendment all he is asking for is that some sympathetic consideration shall be given to the tithe-payer, that he shall be in a position to go to a county court or some other authority and make out his case. I should have thought the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Barnstaple would have appealed to the Minister of Agriculture. If the tithe-payer has some reasonable chance of paying at some time after 1st April or 1st October the Inland Revenue authorities ought not to have power to take action at once. I appeal to the Minister to give further consideration to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barnstaple.

Although I very much prefer the wording of the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) and myself, I very much regret that the Minister should find himself unable to accept this Amendment or to give the matter further reconsideration. It seems to me that the reason or the excuse advanced for not accepting it is a very poor one. All the Minister has said is that it will not matter because the present system will continue for seven years. He seems to forget that these tithes will go on for 60 years, and the argument that nothing can happen for seven years appears to have nothing to do with the case. This is a matter which affects both the man who owns and occupies his land and the man who owns land and lets it. The case of the man who owns and occupies his land has been clearly and forcibly put, but the case of the man who lets his land has not been presented, and I should like to put that before the House. A landowner never gets his rent until some three months after Lady Day or Michaelmas. Customs differ in various parts of the country, and in some places the delay is longer than that and in many cases runs to six months. That means that the landowner will not have the money in the bank with which to pay his tithe at the due date. He cannot alter the date on which he gets his rents, because to do that would upset his tenants. He can do nothing to protect himself, he has no money in the bank, and, therefore, the old practice of not allowing proceedings to be instituted until three months after the tithe becomes due ought to continue. I hope the Minister will give much closer consideration to this matter. If Queen Anne's Bounty can wait three months for the tithe why on earth cannot the Treasury wait?

I hope we may have an assurance from the Minister that if this Amendment is withdrawn he will accept the Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. RugglesBrise). We on this side of the House are anxious nothing should be done to worsen conditions from the point of view of the tithe-payers. The Minister referred to the provisions of the Act of 1891, but I would remind him that this Clause adds the words "with the necessary modification." I think the Minister ought to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon. If he would do that it would make it plain that the three months' grace is maintained, and that would meet the anxieties which many Members feel on this point.

I. would try to make my position clear, in particular to the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise). I have always preferred his Amendment to mine, and I was ready to vote for his Amendment in the Committee. I put down a slightly different Amendment, because I hoped that mine would meet the reasons which the Minister advanced in Committee for rejecting the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member. To-day the Minister has taken us by surprise by calling out attention to Sub-section (3) of Clause 16. I must apologise to the House for not having noticed the full effect of that Sub-section when putting down my Amendment, but I am afraid that my apology is not very deep or humble, because the Minister certainly did not appreciate the position of the Sub-section a week ago. The Minister did not know what the provisions of his own Bill would do, because if he had known he would have done what was his duty to the Committee; he would have made his point there, so as to give us time to consider the matter between the Committee stage and the Report stage.

It is very embarrassing to have this very complicated Measure referring to another Act of Parliament, with the necessary modifications, and to try to think that out upon the benches of the House. We are now at the last stage. I am willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I suggest that the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon should be accepted. If that is considered likely to produce any embarrassment to the Minister because of the danger that wealthy tithe-payers would delay payment and thereby wreck the finances of the scheme, there is another place where the Minister can make Amendments to deal with that situation. I particularly ask for acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon because there does not seem any other chance of safeguarding the tithe-payers once the Board of Inland Revenue have taken control. The Minister must be well aware that, in the state of business in this House, it is difficult to find opportunities, and I believe that this will be the last chance that the House will have of safeguarding these tithe-payers.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker whether it is your intention, if this Amendment is withdrawn, to call the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise). It is not the same as the one we are now discussing. It might simplify the proceedings if we knew what is to happen.

If the Amendment which is now before the House were withdrawn, I would call the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise).

rose—

If the House desires to take the whole of the Debate upon this Amendment I shall be perfectly willing to do so, but if the other Amendment is called at a later stage, the Debate clearly will be much more limited on that account, the general Debate having taken place. It is simply for the convenience of the House; if the House desires a reply and the general Debate now, I shall be perfectly ready to fall in with the arrangement. If, on the other hand, the House desires to discuss the other Amendment, it is reasonable that I should not make the same remarks twice, and that I should defer my remarks upon this Amendment.

They need not be remarks. The right hon. Gentleman need just indicate his acceptance of the Amendment.

I think the right hon. Gentleman, when he was on this side, was not usually in the habit of throwing out undertakings like that.

We have had the discussion.

All right. We shall agree that the general Debate has taken place.

On a point of Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) had asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

I did not understand that the hon. Member asked leave to withdraw it.

I did. I got up, but another Member was speaking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on account of the assurance that the later Amendment will be called.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 41, at the end, to insert:

"Provided always that no action for recovery shall be taken where any sum due on account of an instalment of an annuity is in arrear for less than three months."

I will not repeat the arguments which have already been placed before the House. Probably hon. Members will wish to hear just the reply from the Minister. I would say to him that I think he will appreciate the great strength of feeling which exists in every quarter of the House on this subject, and that this matter is in certain cases of value to tithe-payers. It was given to them deliberately by Parliament some 40 years ago, and no good reason has yet been advanced in this Debate why the concession should be taken away. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself in a position to give the House an assurance that if he cannot accept this Amendment straight away, as I trust he will, he will be able to give a definite pledge that the matter will be sympathetically considered by him by the time this Bill appears in another place, and that he will use every endeavour to see that this concession is preserved.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It has for a long time been not only the custom but the right of the agriculturist that rent charges—and tithe is a rent charge—should be given this latitude. The Bill proposes to make it a personal charge and not really an agricultural charge, and it is an injustice that the privilege should be taken away from the agriculturist.

We have come down to the simple point of the permanent extension of the three months' grace, or rather, of a permanent statutory bar to proceedings being taken within the period of three months. It is agreed that no change whatever will take place for seven years to come, and that the procedure of recovery that now exists will exist for many years. Hon. Members ask for some concession on the lines of the Amendment. They say—and I can see their point—that the Bill covers a long term, and they are anxious to safeguard the position in the future as it has been in the past. I would point out that the position in the future will not be precisely as it has been in the past, because there will be a unified collection. The Inland Revenue will be by that time covering the collection both of tithe rent-charge and of the various taxes, and it will be in a very much better position to appreciate the position of an individual taxpayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It has been one of the great complaints against tithe that the unhappy tithe-payer was harried by two separate bodies, the Bounty on the one side and the Inland Revenue on the other, and I am sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will agree that that is a complaint of real substance. But that will have passed, and the responsibility for the management of all these financial affairs will be in the hands of one body.

I do not think any agriculturist would claim that the Inland Revenue has been unsympathetic towards agriculture, or that it has unduly pursued or harassed agriculturists. I think there would be great danger in putting in a specific period, because it would tend to produce a rigidity from which we want to escape. No one suggests that even in the future, seven, 10 or 15 years hence, the Inland Revenue is going to distrain upon people forthwith, immediately after payment has become due. That is not the practice of the Inland Revenue to-day, and I see no reason to suppose that it will be in the future, more especially since, if it succeeds in harassing the individual and extracting one sum from him, it will make it impossible to extract the other sum which it also desires to get, namely, the ordinary taxes of the country. I would ask the House to consider that point very carefully.

I must repeat that I am under the great necessity of standing surety to the general taxpayers of the country for the great sums which are being advanced under this Bill. Nobody would wish to jeopardise the £70,000,000 of public money which is being advanced here, and on these annuities the Inland Revenue will need to rely for interest and sinking fund in respect of this great sum. The administration must be sympathetic, or the revenue will not be obtained. Unreasonable or harsh distraint must not be applied, because it would create in the countryside for the sake of a £5 note difficulties which £500 would not suffice to allay. I think the House would be well advised not to place this bar upon any proceedings for recovery at the specific period of three months, but at the same time my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise), who has been deeply immersed in these matters for many years and occupies a position of peculiar responsibility in this House in relation to agricultural affairs, has requested me to look very carefully into the matter with my colleagues. I am willing to give that assurance, but I am unable to accept the Amendment now, and hope that the House will not force it to a Division.

We now know where we are. The Minister in his reply to the first Amendment pointed to the governing words in Sub-section (3) which he said adopted the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1891, and from that point of view I was anxious not to do anything in this Bill that would worsen the position of the tithe-payer. But it is obvious now, from the right. hon. Gentleman's speech, that he is unwilling that the Inland Revenue authorities, when they come to be the actual collectors, should be debarred from proceeding within the three months laid down in Section 2 of the Act of 1891. I do not think there is any need to debate the matter further; the only thing that we can do is to divide.

I think that what the Minister has said rather strengthens the position in favour of the Amendment. He said that the Inland Revenue will not only be collecting Income Tax, but will also be collecting tithe rentcharge, and that therefore they will know the conditions of the individual on whom they are claiming. That is true; they will be in a good position to understand; but what we want to insist upon is that the right which they have under the present Income Tax laws of the country should be withdrawn by some Clause in this Bill. I must say that, observing the Minister's demeanour, it reminded me very much of Scrooge.

I trust that the House, if it divides on this Amendment, will not be led away into giving the Amendment undue importance. Though I have great sympathy with its purpose, I do not believe that in actual practice the passage or non-passage of the Amendment will make the faintest difference to anyone. As the Minister has said, it has not been the practice of the Inland Revenue unduly to harass people, anyhow as far as tithe is concerned. It has always been most reasonable in giving time before starting to take action, and there is no reason—unless, perhaps, hon. Members opposite should unfortunately come into power and speed things up—to suppose that the Inland Revenue would depart from that practice. What we really have before us is the choice whether something which we want to see done, and which we believe will be done, shall be a matter of administrative practice or of statutory obligation. As a matter of principle I prefer the statutory obligation, and for that reason I should have liked to see the Amendment accepted, because I believe that on the whole it is better that these matters should be decided by the House than by Ministerial Departments. If however, the Minister cannot see his way to accept the Amendment, I hope that hon. Members will not be led into accepting the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that this was some inroad into the defence of the tithe-payer. It is nothing of the sort; it is a matter of administrative machinery, and is relatively unimportant; and when the right hon. Gentleman, the representative of one of those great wealthy organisations which has proved the farmers worst enemy in this country—

That is a perfect lie.

The right hon. Gentleman has told me that the statement I made was a lie. I ask your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The statement is true; I am prepared to substantiate it; but whether it is true or not I wish to know whether the expression used by the right hon. Gentleman is a Parliamentary expression, whether I am to accept it, and whether it is in Order.

I am not quite sure that I follow what the hon. Member means.

I made the statement that the organisation represented by the right hon. Gentleman was one of the worst enemies of the farmers—

I am entitled to say that that is an utter falsehood.

I believe it to be true. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was an absolute lie. I wish to know whether that is a Parliamentary expression or not. I am perfectly willing to accept your Ruling on that subject, but, if the right hon. Gentleman does not withdraw, I shall remember next time when he makes one of his numerous mistakes.

The hon. Member is perfectly in order in expressing his opinions. Whether they are right or not it is not for me to say. At the same time it is not in Order for any hon. or right hon. Gentleman to accuse another hon. Member of making a deliberate and conscious false statement.

The statement has often been made by other people to the same effect, which is absolutely untrue. I said the statement made was a lie. If the hon. Member is repeating a statement that he has heard from other people, and has no evidence in support of it, I am perfectly entitled to repeat my statement that any such expression is a lie.

The word "lie" is not used in this House. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in Order in saying that the statement is incorrect or unfounded, but the word "lie" is not used between Members in this House.

I am always willing, in response to the Chair, to substitute words which are considered a Parliamentary expression, and I substitute that.

After the right hon. Gentleman's delicate and gracious withdrawal, I shall repeat the statement that I made, which is true and which I make on my own knowledge. That point having been settled, I return to the argument that I was developing. I hope very much that, particularly after the display the right hon. Gentleman has just given, Members will not be led away by his crocodile tears over the poor tithe-payer. We know perfectly well that this Amendment, which is merely a question or machinery, is moved purely for the purpose of making party capital.

rose—

I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I am not in the least suggesting that my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment is an attack on the Government. If that is what I said, I regret that I expressed myself wrongly. There is a good deal of humbug on part of the front Bench opposite in trying to make party capital out of it.

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to refer to another hon. Member as being a humbug?

The word "humbug" is not a parliamentary expression.

I am always ready on your ruling, Sir, to withdraw an expression and substitute a suitable one. I now do so.

I do not agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) has said so far as it affects the Amendment. It is a very vital Amendment. It is true that it does not affect the matter for seven or 15 years' time, but afterwards it does affect it in a very serious way. We have always had the custom of keeping rents back for three months. If we do not put this Amendment in, some landlords, I fear, will have to take away that three months' grace. It is not that they will be, but that they may be prosecuted. For that reason I ask the Minister to insert the Amendment either here or in another place.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont), who apparently has not studied the Bill, has lectured us and has succeeded in insulting not only the Opposition but also the 31 over of the Amendment. It is not good enough for the Government to say they will look into this. I am certain that the other place will press this point. I shall not hesitate to vote against the Government if they do not give us a better assurance than they have done. The Minister is adamant, as he was in Committee. His whole argument was that there was protection for the next seven years and why bother about what was to happen afterwards? If he admits that that protection is needed for seven years, why it is not needed for the rest of the 60 years? That is where the argument is completely false from beginning to end. I shall certainly vote against the Government if they do not give us a better assurance that the matter will be altered in the interest of the tithe-payer, notwithstanding the advice of the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

I think it would be a very great mistake to allow the Bill to go away without having some idea of what will happen in the future. Why cannot we decide the thing now once and for all? The farmer has to decide soon what he is going to grow seven years ahead, because in seven years he will have to have a crop which he can sell quickly in order to pay his tithe. From long-established custom, and for the good of the land, landlords give tenants from three to six months in which to pay their rent. They do this as a practical measure, and for the good of the land—so as to keep that money in the land and not deplete the soil. I see no reason why we should allow the Bill to leave the House without a definite assurance that what is going on for the next seven years will go on for the whole life of the Bill.

What I have heard just now forces upon one's mind the fact that this is a practical question of collecting money. If the farmer has not the money, how is he to pay? I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the matter, because I have been pressed by practically all the farmers in my division on this particular point.

If I thought that the non-acceptance by the House of this Amendment would lay it down in black and white for all time that a rigorous collection of these annuities would be made on the very day laid down in the Bill, I should have no other course open to me but to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment. But we have to bear in mind that, in the case of other sums of moneys due to His Majesty by his subjects, there is, although no statutory period of remission is laid down, a provision, nevertheless, in the actual administration by which the Commissioners and collectors, as the case may be, can, in fact, have due regard to any hard cases. There must be very few hon. Members in this House who know of cases where there is a rigorous prosecution for non-payment of Income Tax. Why should not tithe redemption annuities be on the same par with Income Tax? I could not enter into an argument about that on this Amendment, but it is certain that we are making a personal liability of the moneys which form these redemption annuities to the Crown, and I feel that those persons in authority who will be charged with the collection of these annuities will exercise, as they do in the case of Income Tax, a due and proper regard for all that is reasonable in making proper allowances for the time when these annuities should be paid. Therefore, I must support the Government in resisting the Amendment.

There is a distinct difference between agricultural and ordinary business. The fanner may find himself in a fair position in July, and he may be nearly bankrupt in December owing to the effects of the weather. I as a farmer have no complaint against the Inland Revenue authorities. I have tried their patience very much on more than one occasion, and they have always been very tolerant, but what we want to do here is to carry on the tradition that this three months' credit should be given, and not leave it to the individual surveyor to decide.

As I have said, I have considered the matter very carefully. My hon. and gallant Friend the member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) has put up a good case in support of the Amendment, and I have undertaken to look into it between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place. It would be impossible for me to go further than that this afternoon. We are dealing with a matter which will not arise for many years, and it is one for the Departments to consider. While it is very desirable that the question should be carefully looked into, it would be wrong for me to accept the Amendment now. I therefore ask the House not to accept the Amendment, and I say, with the full responsibility of the Government, that I am giving the matter my attention, and that already the attention I have given to it has had the result, as everybody will agree, of removing the state of immediate danger. As to the future, I do not think that it is reasonable to ask me to go further than the pledge which I have given to the House. I would remind the House, and hon. Members who were in Committee, that I always do my best to fulfil the pledge when I say that I will look carefully into a matter, and, if necessary, submit Amendments. It is not possible for me to go further than that, and I ask the House whether they will not now agree to come to a decision.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the words he used on the Amendment in Committee.

"I am anxious in all these matters to carry the Committee with me as far as possible, and I will undertake to go into the matter before Report. … I could not do more than give the matter consideration, but I say that seriously. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend, on that undertaking, will leave the matter over till Report, when he can raise it again if he is not satisfied with the result of our consideration.—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 16th June, 1936; col. 132.]

What is the result of the Minister's consideration? It is that he is going to consider it again before the matter goes to another place.

Surely the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) is doing me much less than justice. We all agree now, that the whole matter is protected for many years to come by the section of the Act I have quoted. The assurance I gave to the hon. Member of further consideration was fully borne out, as hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree.

I do not entirely agree with the Minister in that. He gave the matter more consideration, and discovered something which he did not know was contained, or provided for, in the Bill, and he thought that that would be good enough to resist my Amendment and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise). It would be in accordance with the will of the House expressed on all sides that this Amendment should be accepted now, and that then, if the Minister wishes to consider the matter again before the Bill is finally law, he should have the opportunity of considering making alterations in another place. In view of what has been said, we should like to make sure that the consideration will be more effective than it has been at the present time.

I do not wish in any way to snake the position more difficult for my right hon. Friend, but if we allow the Bill to go to another place as he suggested, this House will lose its power in the matter. If it goes to another place and if Amendments are made, we can either accept or refuse them, but we cannot put in any Amendments. If the Minister does not see fit to have an alteration made in another place, the Bill will come back to us and we shall not have the power to insist that such an Amendment be put in.

I have always noticed that whenever the Government lay it down that there shall not be an appeal or proceedings taken before the expiration of three months, such as is done in this Amendment, a number of people, particularly lawyers, get up and say that the Government are being arbitrary because in laying down the period of three months they enable the Treasury officials to proceed at the end of those three months. That is an argument which is constantly used. The Minister has promised to do several things. He has promised that there shall riot be any arbitrary proceedings under the Act, and the House will welcome that promise. He has made concession after concession on this particular point. It is clear that the real point of the Minister's argument was that he intended to look into the matter. I gathered that he had made concessions on a large number of points which had been raised on the Bill. He has obviously done his best to meet hon. Members, and it would not be advisable for the House to accept an Amendment of this kind which might have a limiting effect and might make it more difficult for the Minister and the Treasury to exercise that reasonableness which the Minister has proclaimed to-day. I join with many hon. Members in the desire that there should be nothing arbitrary, but I would ask the mover and supporters of the Amendment whether they are certain that they are not doing something which is the reverse of that which they wish to do.

It is always a bad thing to carry an Amendment of this kind when it is supported by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and other hon. Members, who are not usually very tender in their outlook towards agricultural interests, and are always ready to put the screw on when they can. I should be very reluctant to adopt the Amendment unless I could be assured by the Minister that it will not make the Bill more arbitrary than before. I know what our opponents are likely to do. They are prepared to accept this Amendment, but I am prepared to accept the Minister's declaration that he will go into the matter carefully, to see whether it is possible to do anything further to meet the position and to make it clear that this provision is not to be used arbitrarily, and that if there is any need for safeguard, such safeguard will be given. I would ask the majority of the House and all who are anxious to help

I beg to move, in page 19, line 31, at the end, to insert:

"(8) No sum to the recovery of which this section relates shall be recoverable if—

(a) proceedings for such recovery have not been commenced before the expiration of two years from the date on which the sum became payable;

(b) the person by whom the sum was payable proves that the delay in taking proceedings was not caused or contributed to by some act or omission, wilful or otherwise of himself, his servant or agent, or predecessor or predecessors in title."

I have to apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte) because this Amendment is based upon one which the hon. and gallant Member moved in Committee. I have altered it slightly in order to meet the objections which the Minister raised to it in the form in which it came before the Committee. At the present time tithe rentcharge is not recoverable if action has not been taken for its recovery within two years of the date at which it becomes due. The Amendment simply continues that state of affairs, as did also the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member during the Committee stage. The objection taken then to the Amendment by the Minister Was—

"I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. It is really, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just said, holding out an inducement to somebody to withhold maps, or to conceal documents, or not to be very expeditious with his procedure because if he could succeed in playing hide and seek with the Commissioners for over two years, then he would not be liable for the money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 16th June, 1936; col. 142.]

That objection of the Minister seems to me to be perfectly sound, although perhaps it only covers a relatively small number of cases. Therefore I have drawn the Amendment to meet the objections of the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment says:

"No sum to the recovery of which this section relates shall be recoverable if proceedings for such recovery have not been commenced before the expiration of two years from the date on which the sum became payable;"

Up to that point it is the same as the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member in Committee; but I have added paragraph (b)—

"the person by whom the sum was payable proves that the delay in taking proceedings was not caused or contributed to by some act or omission, wilful or otherwise of himself, his servant or agent, or predecessor or predecessors in title."

I submit that the addition completely meets the point which the Minister made in resisting the Amendment in Committee. It is clear that the onus of proof rests on the tithe-payer. He has to prove that no proceedings were taken within two years, that nothing which he has done has contributed to or caused the delay. I can imagine in the normal case a man saying that he has done nothing to cause the delay, he has not concealed anything, or kept anything back. But the Commissioners have only to show anything in the way of withholding maps, concealing documents or not being expeditious with his procedure, and immediately the sum will be recoverable in spite of the fact that two years have elapsed. I have taken great pains to meet the objection of the Minister, and I hope he will be able to accept the Amendment in this form.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is exactly in line with the Amendment I moved in Committee and refused by the Minister because he thought it might lead to people withholding maps. The Amendment meets the objection which was raised. There is no reason why the rule about two years, which is the law now, should not be carried on and I hope the Minister will grant this small concession.

It is true that we discussed this proposal upstairs and that I said I would look at the matter before the Report stage, although I did not hold out any hopes at all of the Amendment being accepted. I am sure hon. Members will not consider that there has been any breach of faith if I find myself unable to accept the Amendment now. The fact that the hon. Member has gone so carefully into this question shows the great complexity of the subject. He has put it forward as a concession which would be acceptable to the tithe-payer. I beg the House to consider whether, in fact, the tithe-payer would find it a concession at all in practice. He would have to prove that the delay in taking proceedings:

"was not caused or contributed to by some act or omission wilful or otherwise of himself, his servant or agent, or predecessor or predecessors in title."

Consider the debate we have just had. Consider my position if I had to argue with the Prime Minister or the Chief Whip that any delay had not been caused or contributed to by myself or my agents. I should be in a position of considerable difficulty. It is a difficult matter to prove the negative in such cases. It would lead to an interminable amount of legal proceedings which would bring no advantage to the mass of tithe-payers as a whole. I hope that the hon. Member in these circumstances will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 24, line 16, to leave out from "Act," to "be," in line 18, and to insert:

"shall, if the person from whom it is demanded claims, or in the event of dispute proves, that any of the land out of which the rentcharge issued was on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, agricultural land."

This Amendment is to deal with the question of the procedure for the first interim collecting period, that is to say, the collecting period when the Act has only just become law. I think it was understood by the Committee, although I am not sure that it is understood by the House, that the reductions will begin to operate on 1st October. This will clearly present a difficult administrative problem which will be treated as a technical matter. We have been in long and careful consultation on this point with the professional gentlemen to whom my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred, and they pointed out that it would be quite impossible to draw up the demand notes on the basis of urban rates or rural rates, because in fact nobody but the landowner himself could truly say whether the land was urban or not. Therefore, in the first instance the demand will go out at the rate of £105, and it will be clearly stated that it will be possible to reclaim under this Order if the land is agricultural land. We are at present arranging with the professional gentlemen to whom I have referred the proper terms of the demand note and we shall do our utmost to see that on the demand note the necessary calculations for claims at the lower rate are put forward. Therefore, I think this will be to the convenience of the tithepayers as a whole.

I understand that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) wishes to move his Amendment in page 25, line 21, in a slightly modified form.

I beg to move, in page 25, line 21, after "him," to insert:

"or within such extended period as the Commission may, in special circumstances, allow on application being made to them, in that behalf, by the tithe-payer."

As a result of conversations that have taken place, I believe this Amendment is one which can be accepted if it be in the modified form. I now move it. I will explain to the House how this has arisen. I had doubts because of the words in Clause 20, Sub-section (7) to the effect that a tithe-payer who claims any relief as a matter of grace under this Section should automatically be deemed to admit legal liability to the payment of arrears. I can conceive of cases in which he might desire to dispute the legal liability and if legal liability was established, to ask for mercy. I considered an extreme case where a tithe-owner would try the effect of sending in a wholly unjustified demand for arrears in an attempt to delay the Committee. I think everyone who has looked into this matter thinks that something should be done about it, and I am grateful for the information which has been given me in advance that something can be done. What is to be done is to extend in certain cases the period of one month in which claims for mercy can be made. That extension would give any tithe-payer a chance of settling in the ordinary and proper way the legal liability to any claim of arrears. If he felt that claim was one he ought to dispute, the Commission would always give him the extensions of time in the event of a bona fide dispute. The only substantial alteration in the Amendment on the paper is that the reference is to "Commission" instead of "Arrears Investigation Committee." It was a mistake on my part in not realising that it was the Commission, and not the Committee, which would have notice of these proceedings at the appropriate date.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I advise the House to accept this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 25, line 36, at the end, to insert:

"(6) If the tithepayer satisfies the Committee on a reference to them under this section that the arrears are at a rate which exceeds one-third of the annual value of the land in respect of which the arrears have been incurred, the Committee shall remit such part of the arrears as amount to one-half of the excess."

The Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman will observe, is consistent with Clause 14 (1) with regard to the general situation so far as relief is concerned. We are simply asking that when the Investigation Committee, in examining a question of arrears, finds that the tithe-charge exceeds one-third of the annual value, 50 per cent. of the excess over one-third of the annual value can be remitted to the tithe-payer. This seems to be a fairly reasonable Amendment, and in view of the fact that the alleged debt is becoming a gilt-edged security and that the Investigation Committee have the power to remit either the whole or part of the arrears should the financial circumstances of the individual warrant that remission, I think that all the tithe-payers who at the moment are in arrears are entitled to claim the same remission as will be conceded under Clause 14 (1). I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very small concession for which to ask. It is a gesture which he might make to the disturbed tithe-payers, and without delaying the proceedings of the House, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to accept this extremely modest Amendment before the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) gets his breath again and sets the ball rolling against the Ministry, as he did a short time ago. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Although I am attracted by the hon. Gentleman's inducement that I should accept the Amendment with a view to expediting the proceedings, I would ask him to consider the point. It is true that in Clause 14 permission is given that the remission shall apply to all tithe-payers, but this Amendment would enjoin upon the Arrears Investigation Committee the making of a concession which might be obtained merely by delaying. I would ask the hon. Member to consider whether that would be in the interests of good administration.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is not our point at all. The arrears are arrears at the moment. They are not being turned into arrears expressly for the purpose of some illusory concession which the right hon. Gentleman may or may not give. I hardly think it is meeting the point to suggest that the Amendment is an invitation to tithe-payers to lapse into arrears merely because they may at a remote date obtain a concession. I think the point is more substantial than that.

I put it to the hon. Member that my point is a sound one. One is apt to think of arrears as sums extending away into the past over a considerable period of years. But remember that there are instalments coming along. Speaking from memory, I think the proportion outstanding is about £750,000 and only a comparatively small proportion of it, perhaps £200,000 or £300,000, has been outstanding for any very long time. A considerable proportion of those arrears may have arisen through people being a little slack in payment just as people may be a little slack in the payment of the bills of the butcher, the baker or the candlestick-maker. If Parliament passed a Statute saying that there were to be remissions on all outstanding boot-maker's bills, those of us who paid our bootmaker's bills promplty would feel a sense of grievance against those who had failed to pay those bills, merely because they had the habit of keeping their letters in a drawer instead of carrying them about in their pockets—which is the only proper way of ensuring that one's letters are answered. If for any reason, through some delay, arrears of that kind had arisen and there was a statutory injunction to make remissions, those who had paid promptly would feel aggrieved. There is a difference between the remission in Clause 14 which is for the benefit of all and the remission proposed here, which is only for the benefit of those who happen to be late in paying. I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member, on reflection, will find it unnecessary it press it.

The right hon. Gentleman says there may be £200,000 or £300,000 of arrears covering a fairly long period. It may be that that money is owed by persons who find it extremely difficult to pay. It seems to me that very hard cases like that, and there will be many of them, ought to enjoy the same privileges as those now to be conceded to tithe-payers generally under Clause 14. I have no use for the person who fails to fulfil an honourable obligation, but a large number of tithe-payers do not regard tithe as an honourable obligation. Without entering into the pros and cons of the legitimacy of tithe, I think this is a reasonable request to make, now that the Government are taking over full responsibility for meeting these tithe payments and collecting the payments from the tithe-payers, particularly if the right hon. Gentleman will pay due regard to the existing Subsection (6) of the Clause.

It is precisely on Subsection (6) that I would ask the House to take its stand. Under that Subsection if the tithe-payer satisfies the Committee that a remission ought to be made, a part or the whole of all the arrears can be remitted—not half of the particular liability which is proposed here—or paid by instalments or dealt with in other ways. In Sub-section (6) we have gone so far in meeting the general claim, that I do not think that the proposal of the Amendment would be of any advant- age in the hard cases and in the generality of cases, I think difficulties and indeed injustices might arise. I ask the House, therefore, to concentrate on Subsection (6) which makes an extensive concession.

I wonder why this Sub-section was inserted. If the Minister anticipates that there will be hard cases, what does he think will be the number of those cases? We are prepared to admit his generosity in inserting this Sub-section and we are prepared to admit that those who are able to prove that they are really hard up can have all arrears remitted. We do not wish to do anything which would prevent that process, but does the Minister anticipate that the number of cases which will come before the committee for revision will be substantial? Judging by recent events our impression is that there are really hard cases in which the tithe-payers cannot afford to meet these charges on their business. Does the Minister, therefore, expect that a large number of cases will come before the committee for the remission of the whole amount.

There is a psychological aspect of this matter which ought to be taken into account. The possibility of remission under Sub-section (6) is vague and indefinite, but the Amendment gives a definite and concrete assurance. That fact is of enormous importance. The Minister compared a debt of this kind to a debt owing to a bootmaker, but the whole point is that up to now tithe and the arrears of tithe which will be recoverable, have represented a separate kind of debt, not a personal debt but a debt on the land, the theory being that if the land cannot pay, the individual does not pay out of his own private estate. But now arrears will come in as a personal debt and that alters the whole position.

I beg to move, in page 26, line 14, after "section" to insert:

"or within such extended period as may have been allowed under sub-section (4) of this section."

I move this Amendment in a different form from that which appears on the Paper. In that altered form, it is consequential on an Amendment already accepted.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 26. line 30, to leave out Sub-sections (10) and (11).

These two sub-sections provide for the recovery of arrears under the procedure laid down in Clause 16. I wish to get rid of that method and to return to the former method of dealing with all arrears for which there is to be distraint. In this matter there is a great feeling throughout the rural areas. This is a change-over from liability attaching to the land for the payment of tithe, whereby only the stock upon the land could be distrained upon, to the new method laid down in this Bill, making it a personal liability. The demonstration that has taken place recently in London by tithe-payers from different parts of the country was an indication of the strong feeling that there is on the subject. My hon. Friends and I on these benches wished to raise this matter on other stages of the Bill, but we were prevented from doing so in an effective way by the way in which the financial Clauses were drawn up. I think we have an opportunity here to do something, not, of course, to upset the general provisions of the Bill—we cannot do that now—but at least to provide that those tithe-payers who are in arrears, whose tithe fell due at the time when this was not law and when the old system of collecting and distraining was in operation, should be allowed to have the old procedure continued.

It seems to us extremely unfair that these provisions should be made retrospective. We all know the difficulties there are in some parts of the country, how very heavy tithe is on some land, and how arrears have accumulated, not because of the refusal of the tithe-payer to pay, but simply owing to his inability in the present condition of the agricultural industry to meet the obligations falling upon him. Can the Minister not agree that where those liabilities have been contracted under the previous conditions, he should not make this Bill retrospective? I know that we cannot upset these provisions altogether, much as some of us would like to see a modification of the personal liability. It has been argued that now that this liability has become a national charge, it is a charge on the citizens, and the Treasury has to shoulder the liability and, therefore, should have more guarantee of payment than in the past. That is an arguable point, but surely that argument does not apply in this case, where we are concerned simply and solely with arrears. I appeal to the Minister to see that in this case there is a strong argument for giving those tithe-payers who are liable for arrears the same conditions under which they have been living up till now.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not suppose we shall get much sympathy from the Minister, judging by recent events, but I would like to bring to his notice a most significant paragraph in the Report of the Royal Commission on Tithe Rent charge. The right hon. Gentleman, I imagine, has drawn up this Bill largely upon the Commission's Report, though he has made certain alterations in their recommendations, but this is what the Commission say in regard to arrears, in paragraph 162:

"We would make a strong appeal to tithe-owners and tithepayers alike to facilitate the administration of the extinguishment scheme and to enable it to be put into operation without friction."

This is the portion that I would like to emphasise:

"We would urge tithe-owners that they should consider very carefully whether they would be well advised to press to the uttermost in all cases their legal rights in regard to arrears of tithe rentcharge."

That is the point which my hon. Friend has been making in moving this Amendment. The Minister knows the agitation which has been going on by tithe rent-payers, which has culminated in a series of events which should not have taken place in this country of ours. We know that distraints have taken place and that tithe-payers have been sold up to pay their tithe rentcharge. When the Coin-mission take over, they will be taking the place of Queen Anne's Bounty and other authorities. It will be His Majesty, or the Government, that will take possession of these arrears, and they will have to enforce payment of the arrears in ways which the previous owners were not able to do. We are only asking the Minister to consider the equity of the argument that we are advancing when we ask that these arrears, the collection of which was only enforceable in a certain manner?before the passing of this Bill, if it does pass, should be collected in the same way and should not be collected with all the strengthened powers and rights that the Income Tax authorities possess.

I have great sympathy with the point made by the hon. Members for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), and I hope to be able to convince them that I have met their point. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw has just said that he wishes these arrears to be collected in the same manner as that in which they have been collected in the past, but that means that the uttermost farthing should be collected, the full legal liability. We do not wish that. Nobody wishes that. This Clause is a concession to the tithe-payer who has fallen into arrears, and Sub-section (6) is his charter. Under Sub section (6) he gets those remissions of which we have just been speaking. That is a very great concession to the tithe-payer, for not merely are his arrears remitted, but they may be arrears in respect of which a decree has been made. This Clause by agreement takes power to reopen the books of the Courts and to make remissions of arrears which have been decreed recoverable by courts of justice in this country. That is a very strong step. There are only two methods that had to be adopted. Either you had to leave the arrears with the Bounty to whom they had fallen due, and leave the Bounty the powers of collection which it possessed, and which, as it was going out of business, it would without any doubt exercise very stringently—

Considering the smallness of their returns in the past is it possible that they would get better results when they were going out of business?

Anyone who knows anything about the collecting of debts knows this, that, say, a doctor in practice takes very good care not to dun his poor patients too vigorously for their debts, but anyone who has gone out of business, or a person who buys up all sorts of bad debts, has no obligation to anybody, and he does his best to get the uttermost farthing of those bad debts. If a business is wound up and its debts sold the debt collector is generally one who has no bowels of compassion or mercy. We must admit that if these debts had been left for the Bounty to collect the payer would have received harsher measures than he will receive under this Clause. The Bounty has no power to make the remissions that would be made here. The Arrears Investigation Committee in considering these things will certainly take into consideration the more stringent powers of recovery which are open to it. Clearly if it was directed to proceed only by the older methods in these cases it would need to set out to recover a greater amount of the debt due from the unhappy tithe-payer. I beg those who support this Amendment to agree that we feel great sympathy for the tithe-payers' position, and we have done our utmost to meet it. The procedure outlined in the Clause is a more satisfactory way of meeting their position than that provided in the Amendment.

In view of the explanation of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 43, line 10, to leave out "inspection."

In order to give a little breathing space it would be as well for the Minister briefly to explain what is the object in leaving out this word?

I would like to thank the Minister for giving way to our suggestion that there should be no fee charged for inspection. The concession will be greatly appreciated by the whole agricultural community.

I would like to add my thanks.

I, too, would express my thanks to the Minister.

We had Some conversation on the question of charges for inspection. The view was expressed that no charge, or only a very small one, should be made, but my right hon. Friend the Minister has been exceedingly generous and omitted altogether the charge for inspection.

I beg to move, in page 50, line 10, to leave out "the Commons," and insert "either."

It is difficult to see why there should be this invidious distinction between the two Houses of Parliament, and that one is no more likely to be unduly influenced than the other. It is no answer to tell us that this provision occurs in other Acts, because we hope we learn a little wisdom as time proceeds. Nor can we accept the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary that we cannot designate members of the other place as politicians, because many of them were familiar to us in this House and have departed to other scenes for various reasons into which it is not our business to inquire. In the other House there is a large representation of persons who are directly interested in this Bill. One need only refer to the position of the Lords Spiritual to realise that they would be in a favourable position to influence any representatives from that House who might be on the Commission.

Another point put against this Amendment in Committee was that Members of Parliament sometimes experience absence from this place, but I imagine that there will be commissioners who are not members of another place, and therefore it would not matter if a Member of Parliament were appointed and were afterwards to suffer defeat and become an ordinary citizen. We accept the Minister's suggestion that it would perhaps be unwise that members of the Commission should be Members of Parliament, but we ask that that restriction should apply to Members of the other House as well. If there is any suggestion of undue influence, it is more likely to arise in a place where there is a large representation of persons directly interested as ecclesiastical tithe-owners in the persons of the Lords Spiritual than there is likely to be in this House.

One of the reasons given in Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary for excluding Members of the House of Commons was that it followed the precedent that had been set in other Acts, as, for example, the Sugar Beet Industry (Re-organisation) Act. It is casting a slight on the House of Commons to insert a provision that Members of the House should not be eligible to sit on the Commission, but that Members of the other place should be eligible. I appreciate some of the arguments of the Minister about interested parties, but Parliament consists of two Chambers, and when hon. Members are translated from this Chamber to the other Chamber they do not relinquish all the interests that they had when they were Members of this Chamber. Therefore, if the argument is that a Member of this House is not eligible because of certain interests that he may have, why should he be eligible when he leaves this House and goes to another place?

We argued this matter to some extent upstairs, and I thought that the arguments then adduced had convinced hon. Members opposite, and that we had gained the assent of the Committee to the proposal in the Schedule. Members in all parts will agree that there is a difference between this House and another place. I address myself particularly to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland), who expressed some sympathy with the Amendment when it was moved in Committee. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that, after all, the ultimate discretion lies with the appointing Minister. No Minister would appoint somebody who was flagrantly unsuitable for such a post. To appoint one of the Lords Spiritual would clearly be very foolish, but it would be no less foolish to appoint a rural dean. He would quite likely be as vigorous in his opposition to the interests of the tithe-payers as anyone who could be appointed from the bench of bishops. One must allow a certain discretion to the Minister.

My hon. Friends asked why the Minister should fetter himself in his discretion with regard to this honourable House. It is the pride of this House that it does not allow itself to receive patron age of any kind. If the Minister were capable of making appointments from this House, I would ask Opposition Members to consider whether, in fact, it would not be putting the very power of patronage into the hands of Ministers which it is their object to avoid? I do not think they could possibly suggest that all Members of the other place should be disqualified. If it were suggested that both the Members of the Commons and the Lords should be capable of appointment and that we should rely on the discretion of the Minister, there would be a great deal to be said for it, but—

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to move an Amendment on those lines?

I thought that I had done my best to indicate that to put such a power in the hands of the Minister vis-à-vis Members of this House might be an undesirable reversion to 18th century practices which none of us would like to see reintroduced into our Parliamentary life. With regard to the question whether Members of the other place should be eligible, there is an argument which I have urged before on other Bills and it is one to which one must refer again and again. We have in the other place a reservoir of administrative capacity, access to which it would be a great mistake to waste. There are in the other House such people as we ought to wish to see associated with our public life. There are Members in the other place who are not active politicians. There are ex-Viceroys and great civil servants of one kind and another. Hon. Members say that they sit in a place where the. Lords Spiritual sit and that the Lords Spiritual may exercise, by the rustling of their white lawn sleeves, some subtle influence. I have frequently found, that close association with ecclesiastics does not normally influence one in their favour. Many Members of the other place do not attend there at all except at rare intervals, and they are none the worse for that. Hon. Members of this House, on the other hand, must attend. It is their duty and honour to attend here and take part in our proceedings.

It is well known that an hon. Member who is constantly absent from Debates and Divisions in this House may find himself in a position in which he has to explain those absences, but Noble Lords can be absent from Debates and Divisions in the other House without anybody thinking any the worse of them for it, and, indeed, thinking it more suitable that they should have been absent. I do not think anyone appointed Viceroy of India would be expected to fly back at week-ends to take part in Debates and Divisions in the other House, even on Bills so important as this. The House would be doing ill if it passed this Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not find it necessary to press it.

I was rather pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the irresponsibility of peers. He tells us that they are not responsible to anyone in the way that the average Member of Parliament is. The argument used against this Amendment in Committee was that by no stretch of the imagination could we conceive Members of the House of Commons not being politicians, the implication being that Members of the House of Lords are really not politicians. I can testify to quite a few who were in this House, but have gone to another place, who were not very good politicians, but those individuals, political rejects, who are now in the other place could be appointed by the Minister, though Members of this House could not be. The right hon. Gentleman will have had the same experience of the House of Lords as myself. He will have been to the House of Lords when there were, perhaps, not more than a dozen or two dozen peers present; but there is one occasion standing out in my memory when a Bill was before the House of Lords to extend the working hours of coal mines, and then the House of Lords was practically full—indeed, full to overflowing. There were ex-Viceroys there and other Noble Lords who are not seen there for 12 months at a time. When it was thought necessary to keep the workers in their places all those non-politicians turned out to be very active politicians. When the word of command goes out from the Government of the day or when their personal interests are involved, they can become most intense politicians. On the occasion to which I have referred, coal owners by the score were present in the House of Lords, and I am not prepared to say that politicians of that kind, who are so very much interested in their private concerns, are more to be trusted than is the average Member of this House.

But that, really, is not the point I want to submit. Broadly speaking, my point is that there ought to be no discrimination between the Lords and the Commons when these appointments are made. Such discrimination would not be consistent with what we regard as real democracy. I have the utmost confidence in the Minister of Agriculture selecting suitable men or women to discharge the functions of this Commission, but I am not prepared to allow even the right hon. Gentleman such discrimination as is suggested in the Bill, with the implication that a Member of the House of Commons is purely a politician and that a Member of the other place is something either less or more than a politician. There are lots of Members of this House who are not politicians, who never profess to be and never would be, not even if they were in this House for 20 years, and the same remark applies to the, House of Lords, and for that reason I think there ought to be no discrimination between the two Houses. What applies to one House of Parliament ought to apply to another.

In Committee I supported the Amendment. Personally, I cannot see any difference between the two Houses. I have confidence that Members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords would give an equally independent judgment, but I cannot see why a Member of this House should not be capable of administering the Tithe Bill or becoming one of the Commissioners. I think that Members of this House individually or collectively are capable of being quite as independent as Members of the House of Lords, and I shall support the Amendment.

In Committee I appealed to the Minister to stop this nonsense, because I consider it to be nothing else. I am not appealing for Members of the House of Commons to be made Commissioners, but I do not think we ought to make the distinction which the Bill draws between Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in this respect. The arguments used today by the Minister were not up to his usual standard. There was only one touching passage in his speech, that in which he referred to the rustling of the Bishops' lawn sleeves and there I think his reactions revealed in him something of the cold, chill north. In any case I thought his arguments were poor. He said that in the House of Lords there were ex-Viceroys. If anyone has ever known a Viceroy who has come back from India he will agree that he is the last man to be put anywhere, except in a museum, and behind bars at that. He suggested that the Members of the House of Lords are not politically-minded, that there is a passion and a verve among Members of this House which is altogether lacking in that more sober and austere chamber. That would be all very well if it were true, but it does not happen to be true. I recall a Bill in which I was interested and which concerned a question of local rates, on which we spent ten weeks in this House and passed it, but when it got to the other place they killed it in half an hour, they were so dispassionate and so cool and collected. There is no argument here that the other House is not as political and judicial a body as this House. It is not so, and it has never been so.

I have been associated with this House since 1909 and 1910, and I have seen many sights which I will never forget. In the other House I do not want to repeat to the Minister that there were anything but evidences that there were no strong feelings in politics. I have seen them eat the Budget of 1909–10, and I saw them take back the Home Rule Bills. I saw them taking other Bills, not that they wanted to assent to the will of the State; nor was there any feeling that, as they had reached the bench as lawyers, or had become judges that they were assenting to some legal inevitability. In all the time I have known them they have shown themselves just as strong in their political convictions as any body of men in this House, and I have never heard, either in this case or in the case which was advanced under the beet sugar Act, one argument to support us in making this distinction between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

One sentiment has been expressed today, and I hope it will be repeated. We talk a great deal about Democracy in