tural prices. That is quite true, but the | bring a profit, so that the plea that a fact only helps to emphasize the diffi- man's outcome exceeds his income is culties of the case, because it throws a somewhat novel. I think an honourable larger burden of extra rates upon the Member opposite has advanced an argutithe than would otherwise be the case.ment which many of his friends would I hope I have not detained the House too long, but I wish very earnestly to impress on the Government that this is a case of injustice and hardship. I have not said a word about the sufferings of the clergy. That is not germane to the question, but assuredly they have suffered. This is a question of justice. It is on that ground I wish to put it, and I hope the Government will effect a remedy. MR. ROBSON (South Shields): Honourable Gentlemen opposite have been unanimous in their accord that an additional injustice has been inflicted on the clergy by reason of the Agricultural Rating Act. The note struck in that respect has been re-echoed by other Members of this House. Now, I venture to say that that is a sentiment that meets with accord on this side. It is an injustice that an increase of rates should be thrown on any particular class with undue pressure, and that is the injustice which the noble Lord proposes to perpetuate and increase in regard to another class. The ratepayers do not entirely consist of those having agricultural interests. There are also other interests-the unfortunate tradesman, the cottager, the ordinary resident, who has to pay rates. Now, what honourable Members opposite propose is, that the whole burden of the increased rates should be thrown on the trading and residential community, and that which they denounced as an injustice in the case of the clergy does not appear to them as an injustice in the case of the trading and residential community. Now I waited to see if anyone would answer in objection to the Amendment. We have heard of various hardships on the clergy. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester gave one instance of a clergyman whose outgoings exceeded his income. Well, Sir, I belong to a profession, the far larger proportion of the members of which would, I think, say that their outgoings considerably exceeded their income; and yet I do not see the able and distinguished head of my profession in his place to put forward this plea on our behalf. Rates are paid on buildings which, year after year, do not be glad to withdraw. He pointed out that he observed in the University he represented there were fewer graduates coming from the country parts, and that of those who did come, fewer of them showed any desire to go back to country parts. He said that this change had taken place within the last few years with the fall in agriculture. Now, Sir, it would be a most unfortunate thing if fewer persons entered the Church, because if so we would be much the poorer. Is it to be suggested that the community as a whole are to be called upon to contribute towards the provisional clergy of the Church of England, for that would be the plain result? Because some members of the Church of England find they are not getting sufficient stipend, therefore the State is to be called upon to make good the deficiency in the funds of the wealthiest Church in the world. That is not creditable to the Church of England. sex, are MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (SusHorsham): Mr. Speaker: We attempting to deal with one corner of a vast subject, but I do not think anyone is likely to form an opinion from what is spoken from the floor of this House. I sympathise with the difficulties under which the clergy are labouring, and with the support of the Government, which acknowledges the grievances under which the clergy were labouring in the matter of local taxation, but I think the remedy lies in another direction altogether. I think, myself that it would have been impossible for the Government to have dealt with this subject in the course of the Agricultural Rating Bill, because, if I rightly understand that Measure, it was founded on the second Report of the Royal Commission, and I do not think there was one single word in that which alluded to the position of the tithe-owner as a ratepayer. On the other hand, if it was to be admitted that the tithe was to be regarded on the same footing, it would be impossible to exclude the laymen from the benefit of the Act. But, Sir, the grievance is a very real and true one. I had only this morning a letter from a clergyman, in which he said he had a demand for poor rate for £21 for the half-year on an income of £100. Let any honourable Member try and understand what a half-yearly rate of £21, or a yearly rate of £42 on an income of £100, means. I think it will be admitted that the clergy have just reason to complain. In my opinion, the true remedy is by changing the law of assessment. If clergymen were assessed on a true basis the grievance would disappear. It would be out of order for me to enlarge on that subject at the present time, but I thoroughly agree with what fell from the honourable and gallant Member for Essex, and an attempt should be made in the present Session of Parliament to deal with the question, and the best thing would be to relieve all the small livings from the burdens under which they at present labour. I hope the honourable and gallant Member will put down that Amendment, and, if he does, I will give him my support. *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): This has been rather a remarkable Debate for the Second Reading of a Budget Bill. It is pointed out by the honourable Member for the Mansfield Division that this Amendment is directly aimed at the financial scheme of Her Majesty's Government, and that its passage would involve not only the defeat of that scheme, but the resignation of the Government who proposed it. Well, Sir, I don't think that is the desire of my honourable Friend who proposed the Amendment. He has fully explained to the House that his desire is, not to carry the Amendment or to divide the House on it, but to call the attention of the House and the public to what in his opinion is a very considerable grievance on the part of the clergy Now, I do not complain at all of that course, for after a full Debate last year the House, by a considerable majority, affirmed the existence of the grievance. But I must say I rather regret some of the suggestions which have rather unwittingly been made to the House in the course of the Debate. Now, of course, my honourable Friend who proposed this Motion and my honourable Friend the Member for Cambridge University had no idea in their minds of a Mr. Heywood Johnstone. grant from the Exchequer, either to recoup the owners of tithe rent charge for the reduced value of the property, or to redress any difficulty in finding a sufficient number of University candidates to take orders in the Church of England. That suggestion was made by the honourable Member opposite, and, of course, from his point of view, it led him to a comparison between a voluntary and Established Church, and a threat that all such demands would be resisted. Well, I do not believe that any honourable Member on this side of the House could reasonably dream of making such demands. Now, what is the question before us! As my honourable Friend the Member for Sussex said, the question is really taxation in the first instance, and I regret one of local taxation, and not of Imperial that in the course of the discussion of this matter in the country, requests have been made to Her Majesty's Government which point to nothing less than the total exemption, as I understand them, not merely of the tithe-rent charge, but of the whole income of the clergy from local taxation. I do not believe that any such proposition as that is a practical one; I don't believe it would be just to the other classes of the community. It is all very well to say that you ought not to tax clergymen in this way more than the lawyer or the doctor, but, as a matter of fact, they have been taxed in this way for centuries past. That being so, to ask the Government to relieve property from taxation which has been so long subject to it, either at the expense of other ratepayers or at the expense of the taxpayers generally, is not a practical request. I admitted last year, and I feel now, that the case of the clergy with reference to local taxation is hard. think there is a great deal in what my honourable Friend who has just sat down said with reference to the manner in which the tithe charge is assessed. Other speakers on this side have alluded to the same point, and it was alluded to in the discussion last year. not myself believe-if I may venture to say so with all respect to those who have made them all the statements which have been made as to the extraordinary amount of rates compared with their in comes which are sometimes paid by the clergy. I have investigated some of these statements myself, and I have found that I do I That is the position now. the clergyman-no doubt unwittingly- question. has returned the total amount of rates It has been stated by more than one which he paid, as if they were paid merely of the honourable Members who have on the small income of his benefice, taken part in this Debate, notably by though a considerable part of them was my noble Friend the Member for Roches charged on the value of an excellent ter, that the clergy have had a special house. Nobody can contend that the grievance inflicted upon them on acclergyman ought not to pay rates on his count of the passing of the Agricultural house as much as anybody else. There Rating Act. That statement has been fore, I feel that very often cases of this very frequently made. I have seen it kind have been brought forward which constantly repeated in the columns of the have not been sufficiently tested before press and I have seen it supported being submitted to the public. But what with great delight by those who is the real position? My honourable are vigorously opposed to the AgriFriend the Member for Cambridge Uni- cultural Rating Act. Well, at my inversity says there has been a wrong com- stance, my right honourable Friend the mitted which requires a remedy, and my President of the Local Government Board honourable Friend who moved this collected a very large number of cases Amendment says that a remedy should be in which complaints were made by clergyfound. But nobody has suggested what men that the Agricultural Rating Act the remedy should be. had injuriously affected them, and he had those cases investigated by officers of his department on the spot. I have the records of several of the cases here. There are some 15 or 16 cases. I cannot, of course, go into details, because this really is only an incidental question, and it is impossible to go at length into the rating question now, but perhaps I may be permitted to give the general effect of some of the cases, as the matter has been raised. I do not believe for a moment that it can be shown thatexcept to a very small amount indeed, and in a very few cases-the Agricultural Rating Act has injuriously affected clergymen at all. What has happened has been this. *MR. JEFFREYS: Yes; I did. No doubt there are many cases in rural parishes in the country where the charges on the rates have increased owing to increased expenditure, but that is not due to the Agricultural Rating Act. No doubt there are *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, the honourable Member for Hampshire did suggest that the tithes should be redeemed. I know that he has devoted great attention to this question, and I think there is a good deal to be said for his view of the case. I think, also, that the tithes should be redeemed. But I do not think that you could carry through Parliament a scheme for the compulsory redemption of tithes. If you can only introduce and carry a scheme for the voluntary redemption of tithes, the redemption money, if invested in any securities in which it could be invested for the benefit of the living, would return so low a rate of interest as to deprive the tithe-owner of a very considerable part of his present income. But, Sir, with that exception, no one has suggested what the remedy is to be. As other cases in which, immeI said last year, and as has been ad- diately after the Agricultural Rating mitted in the course of this Debate, this Act came into operation, the rates in is but a part of the great question of the parish enormously went up. I have local taxation which is at present under some cases here. But why? Everybody the consideration of a Royal Commission. who knows anything about the way in I stated last year, and I will state again which local taxation is levied knows this: to-day, that it is absolutely impossible that very often the precept of the collect for us to take one part of this questioning authority on the parish will be for of local taxation out of the hands of one part of the year very much larger that Commission, and to make a proposal than in the preceding or the subsequent with regard to it without any sugges. tion from the Commission. that in their opinion it is a matter which should be dealt with before any other part of the VOL. LVIII. [FOURTH SERIES.] part of the year. A parish is in debt to the spending authority, and a larger sum has to be raised in one half-year to meet 2 H land twice over. This was declared illegal, and when the legal rate was raised the agricultural land was relieved by 8d. the Then there in the balance than would be raised in an ordinary half-year, and the following and subsequent half-years are very much less. £, while the rate on That constantly happens. have been cases in which the guardians, tithe rent charge was increased by in the £, due, as in other as a spending authority, have made 2d. to the Local Government Board in- cases, to increased expenditure. In correct returns of the money that has the union of St. Ives the rate was said been spent, and consequently the Local to have risen from 2s. to 3s. in the £. Government Board did not give sufficient An exceptional highway rate of £135 grant in the first instance. Subsequently accounted for a rise of 10d. in the the mistake has been rectified. If I am £, but the rate fell to £23 in the not wearying the House, I should like to immediate succeeding half-year. I have quote three or four cases which show picked out the worst cases I could find, what I mean. Here is the case of a Wilt- and I should be very glad to show the shire parish, where a clergyman com- results to any honourable Member who plained that his rate had increased 1s. 5d. takes an interest in the matter. I have in the £. To anybody who knows all the facts by me, and I can assure the poundage rate that is a very large honourable Members that these are fair amount. Now, what does that mean? samples of the result, when the cases are It was found to be due to increased investigated. I can only repeat that, in county council expenditure and to greatly my belief, the effect of the Agricultural increased exceptional expenditure for the Rating Act in raising the rates paid either year by the guardians and by the district by the owners of tithe rent-charge or by council. The same reason accounted for cottagers or shopkeepers in any parish an increase in a Hampshire parish. In a has been absolutely infinitesimal, and Berkshire parish the rates had increased practically confined to those cases where by 11d. in the £. Of that increase it is very well known that the Act did no less than 52 per cent. was due to not provide a corresponding grant for the county council expenditure, 30 per cent. overseers' expenses and for the parish to guardians' expenditure, and 69 per council rate, of which, after the passing cent. to the district council requirements. of the Act, land only paid half. Sir, it In a Suffolk parish the rate in the £appears to me that I have really detained was doubled, and the clergyman put it the House too long upon this matter, and down to the Agricultural Rating Act. I can only say that I sympathise as much His rate was raised by £21 in the year as any honourable Member of this House simply because the parish had raised with the position in which many of the very much less than was required in the clergy find themselves under the present Their incomes have year before the Agricultural Rating Act condition of affairs. was passed, and very much more than fallen heavily owing to the fall in tithe charge. There are symptoms was required after the Act came into rent tithe may tend effect. In a Derbyshire parish the total that to increase increase was 2s. 2d. in the £ because next year. If this year is going the requirements of the local authority to be a fat year in had increased. The parish had also been and supplants, as it will supplant, a lean over-rated 1s. 3d. in the £ by the year, the result will tell at once. I feel guardians, 41d. in the £ was due to that this question will be considered symthe county council expenditure, and only pathetically by the Royal Commission in 23d. was due to the Agricultural Rating dealing with the subject of local taxaAct. Then here is the case of a Gloucestion; and I can only add what I said ter parish, which I know well, where it last year on behalf of Her Majesty's was alleged by a clergyman that the Government—namely, that if we have vicar had had his rates raised by £10 any proposal before us from the Royal by the Agricultural Rating Act, while a Commission which may alleviate the conlarge farmer was only relieved to the extent of £1 in all. The overseers of the parish, however, after the parish had been credited with its share of the agricultural grant, tried to strike a rate on the old basis, and thus rated agricultural Chancellor of the Exchequer. corn averages, dition of the clergy in this matter, our best attention will be given to it with the view of finding a solution which will relieve them, and at the same time be fair to other ratepayers. *SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not rise for | had ourselves referred this question of the purpose of taking part in this general local taxation to a Royal Commission, discussion; I am quite content to leave and we could not, without a Report from the question to be settled between the them, take one part of the question out right honourable Gentleman and his sup- of the cognisance of the Royal Commisporters. I only desire to take notice of one sion we had appointed and deal with it statement which he made, and which I separately. The Agricultural Rating Act think was an important one bearing on was based on the recommendation of a this question. He asked, Is it possible Royal Commission, which had been apthat clergymen can claim to be exempted pointed by the Government of which the from the rating of tithe? and he added right honourable Gentleman was а that they have been rated ever since the Member. time of Elizabeth. Yes, Sir, but not only have the clergy been rated since the time of Elizabeth, but the landed interest also has been rated since that time. The right honourable Gentleman says it would be utterly impracticable to exempt from the charge an interest which has been rated since the time of Elizabeth, *SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. But they would not wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. We pressed it over and over again, but in so great a hurry were they that an interim Report was prepared in order there being a surplus which they inherited-to make a gift of the surplus to the landowners of the country. That interim Report was brought forward and the money of the taxpayer was disposed of at once without any such consideration of the whole matter. Yet we are now told that unless you consider the whole question of rating it is very unfair to deal with one interest alone that of the clergyman; it would be quite impracticable. But you found no difficulty in dealing with a much larger interest than the clergy, and leaving out in the the towns and in the country, and you cold the tradesmen, the householders in committed, in my opinion-and I have never altered that opinion-a grave injustice; and, as far as I can observe, but he found no difficulty in exempting from one-half of the charge an interest which has likewise been rated ever since the time of Elizabeth. This was done in a moment under the pretence of the ruin of that interest which he says now has had a fat year, and he offered the consolation of a fat year to the clergyman, and for the landowner in that fat year he gives him exemption from half the charge. This discussion is an admirable reading on the Agricultural Rating Act, and from that point of view I listened to it with the greatest interest, and it will be studied throughout the country by those classes which have been charged since the time of Elizabeth, but which have not been exempted from half their charges. Those classes are the clergymen, the trades-throughout the country that opinion is men, and the householders of the country, and I think the right honourable Gentleman must know what is the opinion that exists not only in the towns, but the rural districts among those who do not happen to belong to the exempted interest. Then the right honourable Gentle man made another remark. He said this question of rating is a great ques I do not occasion when the constituencies are able So. I know instances in which it has done so, and I am not surprised at this outcry. But the largest interest of all consists in the householders of this country, who have had no relief from this charge, and exemption. I do not wonder that the tion. So it is. He added that it cannot be dealt with in regard to one interest alone. But it has been dealt with in regard to one interest alone, and every proposition which the right honourable Gentleman has laid down in his speech is a contradiction and a condemnation of the principle on which the Agricultural Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself Rating Act was passed. in difficulties. He knows that if he had EX- to confer the same boon on the other classes of the community which he has *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CHEQUER: What I said was that we no |