THE TITHES BILL.
AT the last moment, the Government have made a com- plete change of front. They have abandoned their scheme for dealing with the subject of tithes merely by altering the process of enforcement by distraint into a simple County-Court suit against the occupier, and have gone back to the plan put forward in 1887. Though we think the Bill of 1887 an infinitely wiser measure than that of this year, and though we hold that if a matter so thorny was to be touched at all, it ought to have been settled on the only satisfactory basis—that of imposing the liability to pay tithe on the owner—it is impossible to free the Government from very great blame They ran the risk of defeat on a measure which, if they had taken the trouble to find out the feeling in the House of Commons, they must have known would stir up every conceivable Parliamentary difficulty. They had not, besides, even the excuse of believing in their own scheme, for it is well known that the plan of 1887 was that of which the Ministry really approved. It is, however, use- less to cry over the waste of the time of the Legislature. The only way out of the imbroglio is to pass forthwith a measure finally settling a question which has been in a state of suppressed inflammation ever since the Com- mutation Act of 1836 studiously avoided placing matters on a sound and reasonable foundation. If the plan of placing the payment of tithe absolutely and in every case on the owner, coupled with the condition that in future he is not to contract himself out of the obligation, but guarded with the provision that in the case of existing contracts compelling the occupier to pay tithe a clause shall be read into all such agreements increasing the rent by the amount of the tithe, is carried through, the Ministry will, however, have done much to redeem themselves from the charge of inconsistency to which their recent conduct has laid them open. One has only to refer to the history of tithe legis- lation to see that this is the only satisfactory solution. Though the Act of 1836—one of the most curious pieces of statutory scholasticism ever enacted—expressly declares that "nothing herein contained shall be taken to render any person whomsoever personally liable to the payment of any such rent-charge," it distinctly makes the produce of the land, and whatever is on the particular piece of land, liable for tithe. Tithe is, in fact, made a produce-charge. Thus, theoretically, the tithe- receiver and the landowner, or the person to whom the latter has for the time transferred his prima'-facie right to the produce of his land, are joint though disproportionate owners of the annual produce. Under the Act, a charge, say, of £1 is declared to issue out of a particular field. Thence it arises, and thence in the last resort it is to be acquired. In other words, the tithe-owner's share is declared to be a pound's-worth of the annual produce of the field,—that of the landowner or his temporary transferee, the remainder of the produce. Following out this principle logically, the owner of the produce-charge is required, if he cannot get his twenty shillings paid in any other way, to enter the land and help himself to his pound's- worth of produce. That is his remedy. To do away with a state of things so barbarous, was the problem before the Government. At first they resolved not to attempt any resettlement, but, leaving the various rights and obligations just as they found them, to provide merely a more perfect machinery for the levying of the produce- charge. Accordingly, and holding that thereby they made the minimum of change, they proposed to give the possesser of the produce-charge the right to sue the occupier in the County-Court for the amount of the tithe, just as if it were a debt. This, they argued, was in no sense an inequitable arrangement, for the occupier is in every case the owner of the annual produce out of which tithe issues. If he had covenanted to pay tithe, he would not be injured unless he was in the habit of breaking his covenant, in which case he could not claim special favour ; while if his landlord had agreed to pay, he could deduct the sum from his rent. Fortunately, however, the Ministry did not insist upon this scheme to the bitter end, but have adopted one more thorough and far-reaching. The Com- mutation Act may say that no one is personally liable ; but that is a mere legal subtlety. As a matter of fact, the landowner is of necessity under the obligation to pay the tithe, or at any rate he is, and this is the same thing, encumbered with a joint ownership which imposes on him a pecuniary liability equal in amount to such an obligation. He may have parted for a time with the possession of the annual produce, and with it the liabilities attaching thereto ; but prznui facie he is the produce-owner, and so must bear the permanent weight of all deductions from the full enjoyment of that ownership. In the long-run, then, he is necessarily the person who must be made liable if the absurd plan of allowing the possessor of the produce- charge to help himself is done away with. This essential fact has, though tardily, been recognised by the Government, and they have drafted amendments to their Bill which, if carried, will put an end- to many vexed and angry con- troversies. In spite of the fact that the farmer, when he bargains for a farm, always allows for tithe, he has never been able to forego the luxury of a grievance in connection with its collection, and has always been inclined to feel that it was he, the poor man, and not the landlord, the rich man, who was paying for the parson. Of course, the feeling was utterly absurd, but it no doubt exists, and to get rid of it will be no small advantage. It is good that fixed burdens should actually fall where they appear to fall. If they do not, human, or at any rate agricultural nature, is certain to feel aggrieved. On yet another though similar ground, the payment of tithe by the owner is to be strongly advocated. Not the least of the evils arising from the present system of allow- ing the delegation of the liability in respect to tithe rent-charge, is the circumstance that the question of Disestablishment, especially in Wales, is prejudiced by the fact that the hand which pays the tithe is often that of a Nonconformist. The man who actually passes the money to the parson soon forgets that when he made his offer of rent, he was careful to deduct the tithe, and imagines that it is he himself who pays it. This being the case, poor and uneducated men are easily affected by the argument that if the Church was disestablished and disendowed, there would be no tithe to pay. Hence it happens that a question which ought to be decided on its' own merits is obscured by purely alien considerations. We- have alviays held that the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales must be fought out on the grounds' of justice. If it can be shown that the case of Wales is oir all-fours with that of Ireland, and that the existence of an Establishment is to the Welsh Nonconformists as great a grievance as it was to the Irish Roman Catholics, let the Church be done away with. Till this is proved, however, all reasonable men should refuse to allow the tithe disputes to affect the question. Tithe will have to be paid whether the Church stands or is overthrown, and the agitation against its collection which is now being encouraged by the Gladstonian leaders, shows a recklessness and a cynicism which are utterly unworthy of men who aspire to rule the country.
The behaviour of the Opposition in regard to the Tithe Bill has, indeed, been in the highest degree discredit- able. Almost avowedly they have said We desire to obstruct any and every measure dealing with the subject, We find the present barbarous system of enforcing- tithe affords us an extremely convenient instrument for bringing about Disestablishment in Wales, and for causing general disaffection in the Principality with the present Government. Accordingly, we will fight to the utmost to• maintain possession of so valuable a political weapon, nos matter whether disorder and riot are the result.' If the Opposition were in favour of the total abolition of tithe; their conduct would not, of course, be open to such adverse comments. In that case, they might fairly say We hate the payment of tithe, and we will do everything we can to get it abolished.' It is, however, declared by the Opposition even more fiercely than by the friends of the clergy, that the tithe ought not to be made a present to the landowners. Whether it is considered as Church property or as State property, the pay- ment of tithe, it is universally agreed, ought to continue to attach to the land. But to admit that tithe ought to be paid, and yet to refuse to allow the Government to pass legislation which will ensure its collection, is simply to take up the position of the American politician who, when asked his opinion of the Maine Liquor Law, gave as his answer : " I'm dead for the law—but I'm agin' its enforce- ment." Cleared of the sophistical cant, and the mutually destructive arguments adopted by Sir William Harcourt, this is exactly what the Opposition say. They argue about tithe being an unfair burden on agriculture, about an alien Church, about lazy clergy and poor farmers, and about unfair settlements,—all possible arguments for the total abolition of tithe. When, however, they draw near such• a conclusion, they simply turn round, and in effect declare : We're for the tithe, but against its being collected.' Surely this is not a standpoint which will win them much credit or support in the country. The Government may have lost some of their reputation for common-sense by their conduct ; but if we mistake not, the obstructive tactics of the Opposition, now that the Bill has been modified, will meet with far more serious reprobation.
Previous page
