Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/139

 1899.] Tithe Bent Charge BUI. [131

Further, referring to the example of Scotland, he said that minister's teinds were made liable to poor rate for the first time in 1845, but that liability was abolished by act of Parliament in 1861. He contended that the clerical titheowner paid altogether out of proportion to his means and ability, and he defended the resort of the Local Taxation Fund as applying only to England and breaking up the burden.

Mr. Long, in reply to a question, further stated that the amount of tithe rent charge in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might be taken at 350,000Z., but it was proposed to extend the Tithe Rent Charge Bill to them because there was a clear distinction between tithe rent charge specifically assigned to a particular benefice and that forming part of a common fund. The debate was then resumed (June 29) by Mr. L. Courtney (Bodmin, Cornwall), who candidly declared that he wished the bill had never been introduced, for its advocates and its opponents alike fell into a number of financial fallacies, and its supporters confused the rating of property with the levying of contributions upon individual members of the com- munity. The true endowment of an incumbent was not the whole tithe rent charge, but only the balance which was left after the payment of the rates. The bill was not only wrong as a solution of the problems with which it pretended to grapple ; it not only proposed what was unexampled in modern legisla- tion — an addition to the endowment of the Church of England — but by so doing it placed the Unionist majority in peril by alienating Liberal Unionists throughout the country. Sir Wm. Harcourt (Monmouthshire, W.) ridiculed legislation by interim report as in the case of the Agricultural Bating Act, and said the Government desired to rob the ratepayers of 87,00CM. He denied that the present rating of tithe rent charge was unjust, and thought the way of dealing with the question by deductions would be fairer than the present one of a lump sum. The tax was not on the person, but on the property. Sir E. Clarke (Plymouth) declared that the bill had been asked for by the supporters of the Government, who knew that the injustice which the clergy suffered was regarded with deep-seated dis- satisfaction throughout the country. Sir H. Fowler (Wolver- hampton, E.), who could not reconcile the arguments on behalf of the measure, claimed Sir George Cornewall Lewis as on the side of those who denied that clerical titheowners were unjustly treated, but the statement he quoted was to the effect that the overseer, generally a farmer, put the titheowner in the rate book at the full amount shown under the act of 1836, but rated other farmers at an amount less than the annual value. He maintained that 10 per cent, of the amount which local au- thorities expected to receive from the local taxation account would be diverted. Great sacrifices were made by Noncon- formist bodies for the support of their ministers, and it was not fair to impose upon other denominations fresh taxation in the

by