granted to one particular class it would | part of his rate in the same way as other cost many millions of money, probably occupiers of land are relieved. I do not five times as much as he has granted to think that there is any considerable dethis particularly favoured interest. Every mand upon the part of the clergy to be occasion like the present throws light on relieved altogether of rates; all that the injustice of that act of class legisla- they claim is that they should be retion, and it will open the eyes of the lieved of half the rates in the same sense community, and, I hope, tend to pre- as, and no less and no more than, other vent in the future such unjust financial occupiers of land are relieved.. legislation as that exhibited in the Agricultural Rating Act. MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I am one of those who objected to COMMANDER BETHELL: I do not quite the system on which the Agricultural gather which side the right honour- Rating Act was carried, and I am sure able Gentleman takes in his argu- that this Debate clearly shows that the ment, whether he supported the clergy passing of that Act was premature, or not, and I do not suppose that because it did not embrace the whole of anybody else does. I want to ob- the cases. I heartily sympathise with the serve that my right honourable Friend Resolution, and if it is carried to a Divithe Chancellor of the Exchequer, oddly sion I should certainly vote for it. It enough, omitted to comment upon the seems to me that the clergy are entitled suggestion that has been so often made to the same advantage as others have to remove the complaints made by the had under the Agricultural Rating Act. clergy. I pointed out to the honourable But even the clergy do not include all and gallant Gentleman opposite and to the cases of hardship, and that shows 'my right honourable Friend that the clearly what a mistake it is to deal with clergy stand in a different position from a question of this sort piecemeal. When the owners of other hereditaments, for this large sum of two millions was being the reason that their income which is dealt with, two years ago, the Governtaxed comes from the land, and that on the ment should have fairly adjusted it for land, if it is assessed, the assessment is the relief of all hardships, so that jusdiminished in virtue of the tithe the tice could have been done to all classes clergyman pays. The claim, therefore, of concerned. Take the large class of facthe clergy, which I understand to be tory owners; there are many cases in made, is that they should be treated as which owners of factories pay in rates the other occupiers of land are treated, more than they are producing in income. and that is a claim which is undoubtedly Their case is equally as hard as that of just. They are differentiated from other the clergy, although they are not quite so people. The incomes of other people do successful in appealing to our sympathies not come from land in the way in which as the clergy are. It seems to me to be the tithe comes from land. The tithe a very unfortunate thing to deal with a owners claim the same exemption, no matter such as this without dealing with worse and no better, that the occupiers it as a whole; and that is my great of land have, and, seeing that the occu- objection to the course the Government piers of land have had that relief, I have taken in this matter, that they have maintain that the clergy ought to have dealt with it piecemeal, and have dealt the same relief. It is perfectly true that injustice to other sections of the comthe question is complicated by non-munity which are outside the special clerical owners of tithe, but I do not classes. think that that is a complication which *MR. MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow) makes a solution of this question so diffi- considered that the grievance of the cult as the Chancellor of the Exchequer tithe-owner was not 80 much fron seems to suggest. At any rate, in his the small point of rating as it was reply upon this question, my right on the point of tithe being charged honourable Friend ought to have dealt on corn averages, with which tithe had with this subject, and ought to have no necessary connection. He had seen shown us why it is that the tithe-owner a letter in the Times some time ago to draws his income from land, and that the value of that land having diminished in virtue of the tax he is not to be relieved of Sir W. Harcourt. the effect that Lord Grey, who wrote it, said that he was the only survivor of those who fixed the corn averages, and admitted the mistake in not making tithe | assessed under a certain value should be a fixed charge. In the year 1888 he him- exempted from the land tax, which would self moved for a Committee of the House relieve to a certain extent, the to inquire into the subject. He then said burdens the clergy have to bear. that tithe would fall to 60, and those hon I rise in support of the honourourable Members who represented the able Gentleman who brought forChurch in the House in those days ridi- ward the Resolution this afternoon, but culed the idea, when then it was at par. I would suggest to him that he should It was a difficult subject, no doubt, for be satisfied with the discussion he has the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal raised, and not ask for a decision of the with, but the difficulty consisted of not question, because this matter, if pressed knowing at what figure it ought to be to a Division, would affect the whole of fixed. He did not agree with the Chan- the financial provisions of the year, cellor of the Exchequer that the recent which I am sure my honourable and galslight rise in the price of wheat would lant Friend does not desire. All that he do anything at all to relieve the clergy. wished to do has been done by the He based that conclusion on his ex- sympathetic discussion which has taken perience of the misleading character of place. the market prices of barley, because it was a fact that very often the best barley did not get into the tithe averages at all, it having been sold privately. These corn averages were injurious to the farmers, and were acknowledged to be most unjust to the tithe-owners. But it was not the Land Rating Act that had increased rates on tithes beyond the expense of the assistant overseers. He had examined many cases sent him, and found they were all mistakes. It was the expense of county councils that increased the county rates, and so increased the rates on tithes. In one case rates were increased eleven times, frequently quadrupled, and the clergy complained, as the ratepayers generally complained. *MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University): I wish to express my satisfaction with the general tone of this Debate. I have the honour to represent a considerable number of those who suffer. The Debate upon this question to-day has been of a uniform character, no one on either side of the House having denied the great suffering which many of the clergy are now enduring. As has been pointed out, it is owing to the increased standard of their work which now prevails that their burdens are greater than they were formerly, for such increased provision often falls upon the clergy themselves. Whether or not the operation of the Agricultural Rating Act has intensified the burdens of the clergy nobody can deny the fact that the clergy bear a great proportion of the local burdens of the country, and I should hope the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have no difficulty in providing that all persons *COLONEL MILWARD : After the appeal which has been made to me by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Oxford University and the honourable Member for Rochester I ask the permission of the House to withdraw this Motion. We have taken the only opportunity we had of bringing the matter before the House, and I thank the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the manner in which he has listened to the proposal. MR. LABOUCHERE: Certainly the honourable Gentleman opposite who has been wailing over the cruelties which have been perpetrated upon the clergy of the Church of England is thankful for very small mercies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told them that there is nothing whatever in their case, and that he will not aid and abet them in any way, and then they get up one honourable Gentleman gets up from the bandit bench, if I may use the expression, and the honourable and gallant Gentleman who raised the discussion now wishes to withdraw his Motion. No, Sir, we will not agree to your withdrawing it, and as I said to my honourable Friend the Member for Mansfield, "if you will sacrifice yourself, I will sacrifice myself, and if you will tell with me, we will tell for the Motion, and force these honourable Gentlemen to go to a Division." Now, I do point out to the House that the honourable Gentlemen opposite ought to be ashamed of what they have said to-day. The Church of England is the richest Church in the world, and they say they are worse off than any Dissenting community in the country. Where do the Dissenting as a staunch Radical, and what were the clergy get their money from? They get Radical opinions in those days? Not to it from their flocks. Well, then, it endow the Church any further, but to follows that the honourable Gentlemen disestablish it-not to give it more, but opposite, instead of coming here and to take away that which it had. attempting to put burdens on the shoulders of other people, should have put their hands into their own pockets and subscribed for themselves. I do not know where we shall stop if this is allowed to go on. When I first entered Question put stand part of the Question." The House divided.-Ayes 215; Noes into political life I came into the House 27.-(Division List No. 124.) Allan, William (Gateshead) Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch) Blundell, Colonel Henry Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Burns, John Butcher, John George Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Cripps, Charles Alfred Mr. Labouchere. AYES. Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Garfit, William Gedge, Sydney Haldane, Richard Burdon Hozier, Hon. Jas. Hy. Cecil Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Lafone, Alfred Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) Lewis, John Herbert Loyd, Archie Kirkman Mount, William George Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Roberts, John H. (Denbigus) Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney) Robson, William Snowdon Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Rutherford, John Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard Seely, Charles Hilton Sharpe, William Edward T. Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (R'nfr'w) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Bartley, George C. T. Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart Souttar, Robinson NOES. Wedderburn, Sir William Whiteley, George (Stockport) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L. Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-L.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts) Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.) Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. StuartWyndham, George Young, Com. (Berks, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYESSir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Woods, Samuel Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Sea e- Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne *SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean) had given notice of the following Amendment "That recent declarations of Ministers out side Parliament appear to reveal a need for defence preparations inconsistent with the reduction of taxation proposed in the finance measures of the year. sons. He said: The ground on which I am opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill is so fairly stated in the Amendment which I would have moved had the forms of the House permitted me to do so, that it is unnecessary for me to detain the House at any length in presenting reaSince the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget speech several circumstances have occurred which go to show that he is less likely than he was at that time to have at his disposal the money he dealt with in that speech. As regards one of these matters, the result of the appeal against the decision on the death duties, I understand, is likely to cost him a million of money, though, no doubt, the honourable Gentleman is hoping against hope that the House of Lords would upset the decision of the Court of Appeal. We wait for judgment of the House of Lords in this matter. Yoxall, James Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOESMr. Labouchere and Mr. Maddison. Though it would not be right to discuss the matter now, it should be mentioned as likely to make a hole in the finances of the country. There is one matter, in regard to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself informed the House that it would be his duty to make further demands, and that was in relation to the expedition to Khartoum. He recently informed the House that this country would have to contribute towards the expenses incurred by the Egyptian Government in connection with this expedition. *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX CHEQUER: I did not say that. I said I should have to make a proposal in regard to it, and I may now say that the proposal will not affect the Budget. *SIR C. DILKE: We have had experience on former occasions of such matters which were not intended to affect the Budget of the year, but which ought to have affected that Budget, and which aid affect the Budget in the year which followed. We cannot go further in this matter until we know what the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be. The third matter which has affected the finances of the year, since the speech He I do not on the Budget, concerns the enormous self; but more recently we have again increase in the shipbuilding programme been alarmed by rumours of a speech of the Empire of Russia. I should not by the Secretary of State for Foreign be in order in doing more than mention- Affairs, who is also Prime Minister, and ing speeches made by Members of the therefore in a position of the highest Government, which pointed to a certain responsibility, made at a banquet of the difference of opinion between this coun- Institute of Country Bankers, in which he try and Russia, but the Estimates of the drew, according to the statements made First Lord of the Admiralty, as accepted by persons who were present for the by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and speech was not reported a very alarmreferred to in his Budget speech, were ing picture of the foreign relations of attacked at the time as being dangerously this country, and insisted on the neces low in regard to naval construction in sity of this country making preparations the present year. Last year an addi- for war. An explanation was given by tional Vote of half a million had to be the right honourable Baronet the Memasked for, and rumour says that there ber for the University of London, who is to be an additional Vote for the present was chairman at the dinner, and who year. Now, however, we can only deal with wrote to the newspapers in order to proposals on which the Bill was based, remove the impression which the Prime and accepted by the Chancellor of the Minister's speech had produced. Exchequer in February last. Since the admitted the depression of securities and Estimates were accepted by the Govern- the flatness of the Stock Exchange which ment there has been a very large in- had followed the delivery of that speech, crease in the shipbuilding programme but he said there was no justification of Russia. The First Lord of the whatever for the panic which had taken Admiralty has given the House in-place, because, he said, Lord Salisbury formation with regard to that change. had merely dwelt on the advisability of He was asked a question to which increasing the naval and military esti his first answer was most reassur-mates in face of existing circumstances. ing. After he had given the answer to Now, Sir, that is my case. that question, a statement appeared in need to ask what the Prime Minister the newspapers which was quite different, actually said and the right honourable Gentleman cor- refer to the alarming report which apat that banquet or to rected the statement he made the pre-peared next day. It is sufficient for my vious day. Certainly, the increas in the case to know from the explanation made shipbuilding programme was very large by a Member of this House, who was in indeed; but besides the figures contained the chair on that occasion, that the in his statement, we have the admitted Prime Minister's speech amounted to an fact that an Imperial ukase has been issued in Russia under which an appeal to the bankers of this country to enormous amount of money is to be assent willingly to the large financial spent on naval construction during the sacrifice and the great interference with trade which an increase of taxation would next few years. The First Lord of the involve. Two days after that speech was Admiralty had already had a very delivered the Secretary of State for the heavy shortage of expenditure on Colonies made shipbuilding and naval works, owing to the labour dispute, and other causes. Before that time alarming speeches were made by Her Majesty's Ministers with regard to our relations with foreign Powers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the month of January made a speech of the most alarming kind, and which undoubtedly caused a great deal of depression in all kinds of securities. The alarm raised by that speech was somewhat allayed by the declarations made by the First Lord of the Admiralty oumstances they ought cheerfully to and the right honourable Gentleman him- assent to a large increase in the naval Sir C. Dilke. a speech which also appears to have produced an alarming impression in the country. I cannot now deal with that speech, but there will be an opportunity of doing so on a future occasion. At present I rely on the admission made by the right honourable Baronet who was the chairman at that banquet to which I have referred, that the nobleman who is Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister stated that under present cir |