Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/138

 130J ENGLISH HI8T0EY. [juice

man should depend on such a speculative and fluctuating security. A second cause was the under assessment of other forms of agricultural property, which the bill did not remedy. As to the grant from the local taxation account, the local authorities had a statutory title to every penny, and the tax- payers would thus be deprived of the 87,000/. In conclusion he said those who were concerned to defend the cause of the Establishment should consider how far such a scheme, which sought to remedy suffering at the cost of justice, was likely to promote the cause which they had at heart. Mr. G. Whiteley (Stockport), who sat as a Conservative, took the opportunity of announcing that if the bill passed he could no longer support the Government. In the previous session he had made con- siderable opposition to the rating relief given to farmers, whilst the poorer class of shopkeepers had been wholly neglected. The present measure he regarded as a bare-faced and cynical revival of the dole system, by which the clergy were to profit. His " ideal of the Conservative and Unionist party had been that it should maintain and preserve all the great institutions of the country ; that it should be imperialist in foreign politics ; and that it should defend the rights of private property by a wise and judicious alliance with the democracy — an alliance that should be maintained by the Unionist party, showing that they were as ready to give great social reforms as their opponents. That ideal had been shattered." Mr. Long (West Derby, Liver- pool), in reply, said he was disappointed that Mr. Asquith had not attempted a new examination of the subject. He reminded that gentleman that it was practically impossible to apply the procedure and machinery of the Agricultural Eating Act to tithe rent charge, and that Sir John Hibbert, a former colleague of Mr. Asquith, had signed the report. That tithes had always been rated was no reason why relief should not be afforded if the rates were unjust. Looking at the act of Elizabeth, it would be unfair to say that the titheowners had not a great deal of justification for the contention put forward that the clerical titheowner was unfairly treated when he was rated as a resident and an incumbent, and also as an owner of tithe rent charge. Subsequently, relief had been asked for these clergy, but this relief had been from time to time deferred. He thought it perfectly clear that no addition in respect of rates was made in 1836 to tithe as tithe. An addition only was made to the balance which remained after the tenant had paid the rates. This bill did not profess to give any charitable relief. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman had suggested that the Church of England ought to help her poor clergy out of the pockets of her rich members ; but he thought she had tried to do that, and he found the voluntary sums paid through the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners in the fourteen years from 1884 to 1897 amounted in endowments to 2,729,200J., and for parsonage houses to 1,337,000J., independently of money for private benefaction.