THE COMING REVOLT OF THE CLERGY

It is a truth which almost amounts to a platitude that the Conservative Governments of this century have had no more doggedly faithful supporters than the country clergy. That most convenient of all political stalking horses, the Establishment in danger,' has been trotted out on every possible occasion, and so far has never failed to answer the whip. The support of the clergy is so safe that the election agent scarcely stops to inquire what it is worth, or even to calculate accurately what would be his position without it. The only calculation is as to the electorate with the clergy left out. The old belief that the clergyman is everywhere desperately afraid of the masses still prevails in Tory circles. He is still bound, men think, by convictions as strong as his Ordination vows to fall back on the support of that great Constitutional party which alone can save the Establishment from the attack of an irreligious democracy.

This belief is still widely held, but those who are best acquainted with the clergy are not so fully persuaded of its truth. The Church is beginning to trust the masses, and where she does so her trust is seldom found to be in vain. The last twenty years have assuredly seen a strengthening of the bond between the clergy and the people, and perhaps somewhat of an increasing apathy towards the Church on the part of the aristocratic classes. If this change of relationship is gradual, there is another factor in the situation which will certainly tell at the next general election, and it is on this point alone that we now wish to dwell.

It may be asserted with perfect truth that there is at the present moment no one in England who is so heavily taxed as the country parson. He is the only person in the land who is rated upon his whole professional income, and the demands made upon him are so enormous that one has to look for a parallel to medieval times, or to social conditions resembling those of the Russian peasant. If any other professional class suffered from one half of his burdens, the expression of horror would be universal. But he is only the parson, and, as a correspondent in the Times recently observed, 'sufferance is the badge of all their tribe.' A tyrant was once heard to remark that after he had flayed his victim alive he might then have to resort to

extreme measures.

The clergy have for a long time in a pecuniary sense been flayed alive. They are now experiencing the further 'extreme measures' in the shape of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.

Let us consider the position of the country clergyman whose Tithe Rent Commutation was fixed by the Act of 1836 at 200l. per annum. Of this sum at the present day an incumbent only receives 951. For, at the present value, the 2001. represents less than 140. in cash. And this 140l. is further liable to rates, land tax, and collection fees which, at a very low estimate, amount to another 451. The incumbent is more fortunate than most of his neighbours if he receives his 951. clear. Out of this 951. he has not only to maintain himself and his family, but also to provide for ecclesiastical dilapidations and the numerous calls which fall upon a country rector.

When this state of things is fairly considered, it seems inconceivable that any Government should deliberately pass a Bill the effect of which would be to materially add to these burdens. But Rehoboam, in the person of Mr. Chaplin, appeared, and on the night when he announced that the clergy were to be excluded from the benefit of the Agricultural Rates Act they well knew what to expect. The farmers were to be relieved, but the largest proportion of this relief was to come out of the pockets of the country parsons!

It should be clearly understood what is the exact grievance of the clergy in this matter, for the point is often missed. Their grievance is not merely that they have been excluded from the benefits of an Act which on every ground of justice they should have obtained. Their grievance goes much further than this. It is that this Act will increase their taxation to an enormous extent-in some instances possibly to an additional ten, twenty, or thirty per cent. of their scanty available income!

This matter requires careful explanation, for the result of this extraordinary Act would escape any but a careful observer. Under this Act the occupiers of agricultural land pay one half only of the rate in the pound payable in respect of buildings and other hereditaments.' The deficit caused by this relief to the agriculturalists is supposed to be covered by a special grant from the Local Taxation Account. But this grant in relief is a stereotyped sum, the amount being fixed for five years. Therefore if, as it often happens, the rates increase, there will be a deficiency not covered by the fixed Local Taxation Grant. This deficiency, as the agriculturalists are to be relieved, will fall mainly on the buildings and other hereditaments,' -i.e. on the tithe. For the rateable value of the tithe in many country parishes often amounts to that of all the house property put together.

In order to show how this works we will give an example taken by the Secretary of the Tithe Owners' Union in his correspondence with Mr. Chaplin. He writes:

For example, take a parish where in the year terminating 31st of March, 1896, the amount to be raised by the spending authority is 1,000l., of which 2507. is payable by the occupiers of agricultural land. In this case the grant from the Local Taxation account would be 1251. Now assume that the sum to be raised from the same parish be increased in the year 1897-8 to 1,6007., the rateable value of the parish remaining the same. In this case the occupiers of the agricultural land would, but for the provisions of the Act of 1896, have to pay 400l. As a result of the Act, however, they would only pay 2007., and if the Government grant remains at the fixed sum of 125l. as in the year 1895-6, the deficiency of 751. would have mainly to be made good by the other ratepayers in the Parish, and the tithe-owner, being in most agricultural parishes the largest ratepayer, would have to bear the greatest part of this deficiency.

This danger is indeed no imaginary one. There have been already numerous letters in the newspapers from the country clergy complaining of the increase in their rates since the passing of this Act. It may, of course, happen that where there is no deficiency in the rates the clergyman does not suffer; or it may happen in districts where there is much house property that the proportion of extra taxation borne by the tithe is inconsiderable. But the parson in purely rural parishes has now, indeed, the sword of Damocles perpetually suspended over his head. His security in one year is no guarantee for his security in the next. The sudden rise of rates in a purely agricultural district might swallow up at one blow the quarter of his remaining income.

So far as to the way in which the Government has acted towards the clergy. Let us now consider the grounds it has taken in answering the appeal made to it for redress.

The arguments used in opposition to the claims of the tithe owners were chiefly two:

(1) That the Bill was only for the relief of the tenants of agricultural land.

(2) That the Government had not sufficient funds at its disposal to enable it to extend to tithe owners the relief granted by the Act. In considering these objections we cannot do better than quote from the able report of the Tithe Owners' Union. That report says, as to the first objection:

cause.

The reason assigned for granting relief to the tenants was that they had suffered severely from the fall in agricultural prices, and more especially in the price of wheat. Now the tithe owner has also suffered severely from the same And not only so, but the tithe owner has, on an average taken over the whole kingdom, lost far more than the tenant. This is clearly shown by the returns under Schedule B of Income Tax. For whereas between 1843 and 1894 the occupiers' profits charged under this head showed a fall of 12.9 per cent., tithe rent charge had fallen in value during the same period 29.7 per cent. If therefore agricultural tenants had a claim for relief, the tithe-owner had a doubly strong claim.

With regard to the second objection to the tithe-owners' claimviz. that the Government had insufficient funds at its disposal-we will quote again from the same report. It says:

By a careful calculation it has been estimated that if half of the rates upon tithe rent charge were remitted, and the deficiency made up out of the consolidated fund, the amount of the necessary grant would be about 86,000l. In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget Speech was able to announce that the actual exchequer grant required under the Agricultural Rates Act was 143,0007. less than the amount originally estimated, we might have expected that part of this surplus would have been devoted to remedying the injustice committed in the previous session. But no; the Government, unable to rely longer on the ground of want of funds, shifts its ground, and says relief must not be granted to tithe owners because, if so, the enemies of the Church would be able to raise the cry of a State-aided Church.

The case, then, stands thus: the clergy being already taxed more heavily than any other class in the country, the present Government, so far from relieving them by the Agricultural Rates Act, has immensely added to their burdens. Nor can it be overlooked that the Cabinet responsible for this unjust act consisted chiefly of large landowners. Let Mr. Chaplin say what he likes, it is mere juggling with words to deny that the landlord class derived enormous pecuniary benefit from the Bill which adds so heavily to the burdens of the unfortunate clergy. In asserting this fact we have nothing to do with motives, nor with the high character of the Ministry. But does not everyone know what the reduction of half the rates on an estate means to a large landlord? Or can any possible words explain these facts away?

What, then, are the clergy to do in this serious crisis of their affairs? They will be foolish indeed if they rely on any such broken reeds as promises of earnest consideration,' Royal Commissions, or deputations to the Archbishop. There is no doubt whatever of loyal support from the bishops, but the motive power cannot be looked for from the House of Lords. It must come from the clergy themselves. There is only one argument for politicians nowadays, and that is to be found in the ballot box. If the clergy wish for justice, they must demand it in the only possible way in which their voice can be heard.

Let the clergy form a Defence League, placing other political considerations aside, and with the one object of securing their rights as citizens. This is surely a justifiable course for men who have been marked out for such exceptionally unjust treatment, and whose burdens in the way of taxation are probably three times as heavy as those of any other class in the country. If the clergy at the next general election were to unite in demanding a pledge from their parliamentary candidate that he should endeavour to secure for them the same benefits as those given to agriculturalists under the Act of 1896, their cause would be won.

There is another line of defence which the clergy might adopt, and that is to make common cause with the large class of householders and suburban ratepayers who are already dissatisfied with

the working of the Act. The householder as well as the tithe owner is liable to have his rates raised for the farmer's benefit. And although taxation of income is far more serious than taxation of rateable value, both classes-the owners of houses and the owners of 'other hereditaments '—are alike called upon to undertake a fresh liability. The Agricultural Rates Act is unpopular, and we shall be surprised if the aversion to it does not increase as time goes on. Even the farmers dislike it. They would have preferred such a measure as the abolition of the Highway Rate, or some other plan of all-round relief; but, as the writer has himself heard farmers observe, they do not wish their class to benefit at the expense of others.

We believe that the quiet influence of the country clergy with their parishioners is a factor of immense weight at election time. The average parson is far from being a noisy politician, but there are few parishes where his opinions and example are without their weight. We have no wish to see politics invading the domain of religion. But there are times when even the clergy must defend their own rights, and such a defence, if made with spirit, would immensely strengthen their position in the future.

At the present time some of their so-called friends are resisting their demand for justice on the ground that the granting of such justice would arouse the enemies of the Church. Such a plea may be indeed characterised as both base and untrue-untrue because the sense of justice is the exclusive possession of neither party, and base because it is a mean appeal to forbear through fear from demanding the rights of free men.

The last session has shown that the clergy on this question of taxation are not without their able defenders in Parliament. The debate introduced by Mr. James Round, M.P., brought forth some able speeches, and helped to show the clergy who were their true friends. Let them now themselves follow up what their friends have commenced, let them organise without delay, and if this is earnestly and unanimously done, a very short period will witness the removal of those burdens from which they so unjustly suffer.

HENEAGE H. JEBB (Rector of Battlesden, Beds.)