Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/148

 140] ENGLISH HISTOEY. [july

case, an easy task since the Government had never made clear the reason which moved them to propose this measure of relief. They would not say whether tithe in the hands of a clerical owner was wholly or in part professional income. In fact by not making the relief proposed by the bill co-extensive with such part as might be deemed professional, they did away with one of their strongest arguments, inasmuch as they left one half of the tithe income subject to rates. The assumption seemed to be that, relief being due in some shape, it did not much matter what form it took. This confusion became abundantly evident in the course of the debates in committee on the bilL Mr. Long (West Derby, Liverpool) replying to the objections raised by the Welsh Dissenters declared that its object was not to relieve distress, but Sir Wm. Harcourt retorted that the only justifica- tion of the bill was sympathy for the really distressed clergy. Mr. Lambert (South Molton, Devon), a recognised spokesman of the tenant farmers, then moved that the bill should apply to rent charge " which had no addition at the time of commutation as an equivalent of rates and taxes." Mr. Long said it was a complete delusion to suppose that that addition came out of the pocket of the tithepayer. The difference between the net tithe receivable and the total sum only affected the titheowner. It was a matter of indifference to the tithepayer whether he paid the money to the titheowner or to the rate-collector, for he had already made an arrangement with the titheowner by which he had agreed to act, as it were, as his agent and to pay the rates. Sir Wm. Harcourt agreed that what the titheowner was entitled to was the net tithe. Mr. Balfour said the only contention he had heard put forward by the clergy was that they possessed for services rendered a ratable property, and they desired that that property should be rated on equitable terms. After further discussion the amendment was rejected by 264 to 151 votes, and several other amendments in the same spirit were similarly negatived. On the following evening (July 11) a long discussion took place on an amendment moved by Mr. S. T. Evans (Glamorgan, Mid.) to exclude the present owners of tithe rent charge from the benefits of the measure, and to limit its operations to benefices to which clergymen should be presented after the passing of the act. The discussion was only ended by the application of the closure, and then the amendment was negatived by 262 to 165 votes. The closure had to be applied twice again during the evening, and ultimately the first ten lines of the clause were agreed to. Two more evenings were required to bring the discussion to an end, and a frequent application of the closure, but throughout it appeared that the Ministry retained a solid majority of 100 or upwards, and the efforts of the Opposition to modify the bill were fruitless.

On the third reading (July 20) the Liberals mustered in full force, and its rejection was moved by Mr. Lambert (South Molton, Devon). It had been proved over and over again, he contended,