asked the Lord Privy Seal if a statement can be made, and an assurance given, that vigorous and effective steps are being taken to preserve the lives of British subjects in Ireland and in England? Will the Government move the Adjournment of the House on Monday, in order that the question of the security of life in both countries may be considered?

Every possible step has been taken for the protection of life. As regards a discussion, as the House knows, Tuesday has been allocated for a discussion of Irish affairs. I think it would meet the wishes of the House if we take that Debate on Monday, instead of waiting for Tuesday, and postpone the discussion on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill till Tuesday. I propose to put down a Vote in Supply for Monday, and if, when we get into Committee of Supply, the Chairman's ruling upon the scope of the Debate should make it impossible to give that width to the discussion which under the circumstances the House desires, I will move the Adjournment of the House in order to allow the fullest latitude to the House. We shall be glad to give any information then that it is proper for us to make public. The House, may, perhaps, wish me to take the opportunity to add whatever I can to their knowledge of this matter.

May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government will call for all the reports from Scotland Yard, and give instructions that action shall be taken upon those reports where it is justified?

Certainly, Sir. Immediately the House rose yesterday, some of us were in conference with the officials of Scotland Yard—the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, other Ministers, and myself. Immediate steps were taken, and the searches of last night were the result of the orders then issued. The moment I can leave the House, with the Home Secretary, we are going to resume the conference to-day.

Why did not these searches take place before the murder? Why are measures only being taken now, after one of our most distinguished Members has been killed?

I put it to both of my hon. and gallant Friends and the House at large as to whether, as we are to have a discussion on Monday, it is not better to leave these matters of public anxiety to be gone into in the discussion, when they can be fully debated better than by question and answer this morning.

Is it not a fact that recently, owing to the so-called improved relations between Ireland and this country, instructions were given to Scotland Yard that they need not concern themselves about these affairs as to which, until recently, they have been making reports to the Home Office?

No, Sir; no instructions of that kind were given. But undoubtedly it is the case that, owing to what was thought to be the improved conditions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only by the Government"]—the police protection was removed, and, if I may say so, from Ministers as well as from certain others who had previously been under police protection.

In view of the evident interest of the House in what took place yesterday, would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to move the Adjournment now, in order that we may know something of what is going on?

I would urge upon the House not to press that Motion. I do not wish to withhold anything from the House, but I think that Ministers should be in a better position to make the statement that the House desires on Monday than we can at this moment. As I say, there is at this moment a resumed conference with the Police Authorities, to which I propose to go as soon as I can, and I think that we could make a fuller and more satisfactory statement to the House on Monday than is possible at the present moment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Provisional Government has been asked to trace the antecedents of these murderers, and whether they have also been asked to arrest the leaders of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, who are their friends, and the people who send these murderers here?

Mr. Speaker, this is just one of the matters about which I should ask to be excused from making any statement to-day.

Is it the intention to call into the Conference, which is just going to be held, Sir Basil Thomson, whose splendid activities in tracking down the Sinn Fein gunmen and Republican Brotherhood in this city led to his dismissal?

The hon. Gentleman has no right to make that observation.

Yes, I have.

He has every right.

We shall call into consultation anybody who we think can assist us; but first, and foremost, those who are primarily responsible. I do not want to make a contrast between one police régime and another, but my hon. Friend must have a short memory, indeed, if he does not remember the series of violent outrages and murders which took place in London in the time of the police officer whom he mentions, without a single person being arrested.

In making inquiries from Scotland Yard, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what results followed the report which I myself made to the Special Branch in regard to the landing of arms?

Yes, I will certainly inquire about that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these men came over from Ireland, and whether there is any supervision at all in regard to passengers passing between Ireland and this country?

There has been none.

I cannot say when they came to this country, but I think I shall be right in saying that they have been in this country for a tong time.

Wednesday week!

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows more than I do, and if he has evidence that these men came over on Wednesday week, I shall be much obliged if he will give it to me as soon as he can.

I will put down a question on Monday. I will deal with it then.

I shall be obliged if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give it to me now, before I leave the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the service revolvers found on the murderers were part of the British arms handed over to the Provisional Government?

On Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a clear statement that Mr. Michael Collins, within the last two weeks, was not in direct contact with these murderers?

Can I have an answer to my question?

Could not the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to allaying public anxiety, consider the desirability of the discussion taking place today? Does not that consideration outweigh any advantage in the discussion taking place on Monday? Otherwise we shall have a. Press discussion on this matter between now and Monday, and this is the place where information ought to be given, and where we ought to thrash out the case of national and Imperial importance.

No, Sir; I think the House will see the difficulty in which I am placed by the questions put to me. I have not the material to answer these questions at the present moment. I hope by Monday we shall be more fully informed, and be able to deal with matters to which we can give no answer at the present moment. I trust the House will think that not unreasonable. It is quite clear that at the earliest possible moment there should be a useful and full discussion, and I think Monday—when a large measure of information will be available—that discussion should take place is the earliest day that would fulfil the conditions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when police protection, was removed, and upon whose advice such protection was removed?

I could not give the exact date, but it was removed on the advice of the police authorities, when they thought it was no longer required.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the statement which has appeared in the Press is correct, that some changes are to be made with regard to the admission of strangers to this House?

That is one of the matters to be considered, but we cannot say at the moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question The police must know whether these military revolvers found on these men were part of the arms handed over to the Provisional Government by His Majesty's Government?

That is not a matter upon which I can give any answer at all at the present time. I do not think they were. I do not know whether these arms bear individual numbers which will enable them to be identified.

Are the police to be armed now, or will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter into consideration at the conference which is going to be held, seeing that people are liable to be murdered every day?

The House will remember that the question of arming the police has more than once come up, that the police themselves have never wished to carry arms, and have thought themselves to be better protected among the community when the community know that they do not carry arms. But, of course, these special circumstances of the present time must lead to a reconsideration of the question, although I do not necessarily say that we shall reverse the practice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the thanks of the community are tendered to the gallant and unarmed men and women who assisted in the arrest of these men?

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why the Prime Minister is not present?

Yes, I will. It is because the question is addressed to me, and because the Prime Minister is engaged at this moment in a conference dealing with this very matter. If the hon. Member will permit me to say so, I have the honour to be the Leader of the House, and my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway (Colonel Gretton) addressed the question to me. I think it is my duty, whether the Prime Minister be present or not, to deal with matters concerning the conduct of business. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) is engaged at the moment in a conference on these very matters.

Does not the Leader of the House think that in a matter of grave national importance of t his kind the Prime Minister should be here?

No, I think if there is someone here competent to answer for the Government, the Prime Minister is more fruitfully occupied presiding over the conference to which I have referred.

I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the police on special duty outside Sir Henry Wilson's house were unarmed, in spite of the fact that his life was threatened, and whether, in view of what has happened, the head of the branch responsible has tendered his resignation or whether he will be required to do so?

The police outside Sir Henry Wilson's house were unarmed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] The police were unarmed by their own desire. I would remind the House that arms are provided at every police station, and the police take them when they choose on special occasions. But it has not been thought right to compel the police to carry arms, if they do not wish to do so. We have no information, either from the Northern Irish Government or from any other source, of any threat on the life of Sir Henry Wilson. No one has tendered his resignation, and it is not intended that anyone should be required to do so.

Were there any police on special duty outside Sir Henry Wilson's house?

No; there were no police on special duty at all.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were police, at any rate, in the vicinity between Lord Carson's house and Sir Henry Wilson's house, and that they were unarmed? When I put the question down, I understood that there were police on special duty in plain clothes, who ought to have been armed, and it was in reference to them that I put the question. But apparently they had been withdrawn. I ask if these special detectives had been withdrawn from Sir Henry Wilson's house, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there was a warning, which I have seen myself, from Scotland Yard within the last few weeks?

I am not aware of the latter part of the question. I do not think that Sir Henry Wilson was ever specially guarded.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as Chief of the General Staff, Sir Henry Wilson had special men looking after him?

Yes, while he was Chief of the General Staff, but not since he came to this House.

Were the police armed?

I cannot say without making inquiry, because no policeman is bound to carry arms, and they may or may not choose to take weapons with them.

Has the right hon. Gentleman really considered that part of his answer to the effect that no warning has ever been given to Scotland Yard, or that Scotland Yard itself had not already, some three weeks ago, warned Sir Henry Wilson's friends that he was in extreme danger; and, in view of that fact, how does that part of his answer conform to the facts?

I have no such information, and, indeed, it is absolutely contrary to the information that was given to me last night, when this terrible occurrence was being investigated.

As it was obvious that Sir Henry Wilson was in great danger of his life, in view of the action he had taken, and as the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, will he consider the propriety of resigning himself?

Arising out of that part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer in which he said there.were no police on special duty, I want to ask if Sir Henry Wilson was one of the men whom the Government thought required no protection, because of the policy of the Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] May I have an answer to that question, because I have some information on that point from Sir Henry Wilson and other people?

I am not aware of any such reason.

Did the Home Secretary not write a letter himself to Lord Carson to the same effect a short time ago?

I am not ware of it.

I have seen the letter.

The last information which was given us was that last night the right hon. Gentleman had definitely received a report from an official of Scotland Yard that no warning had been received with regard to Sir Henry Wilson. If that be so, will he say who the official of Scotland Yard was who made that report?

My information was that Scotland Yard had no information that Sir Henry Wilson's life was threatened. Scotland Yard receives an enormous number of anonymous letters about all sorts of people.

Have they no common sense?

With regard to the Debate on Monday, will the matter be placed before the House in such a way that it will be possible for the House to record its vote upon the subject?

It will certainly be possible to do that in Supply, if we can take the discussion which the House desires in Supply, or on the Motion for the Adjournment.

If it be not politic to arm the police, would it not be well to keep some fire-arms in the police stations?

They are kept there.

Yesterday there seems to have been no attempt to use these arms to bring the murderers down, though one would have thought that there would have been.

Arms are kept in all the police stations.

Can the Home Secretary say when police protection was removed? How long ago is it since it was removed? The Leader of the House says he does not know.

I am afraid I cannot give the exact date, but it was some weeks ago. It was removed from everyone, I think, except the Chief Secretary for Ireland—probably about a month ago.

Upon whose advice was it done? Was it upon the advice of one particular person at Scotland Yard?

Oh, no.

Or after consultation with yourself, or how was it done?

It was done on the advice of all those at Scotland Yard who had any knowledge of the subject, and, after careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that the protection was no longer necessary. It was removed from everyone of us.

Will the Home Secretary, in view of what he has heard to-day in the House, make further inquiries from the police authorities as to whether he has made a mistake, or been misinformed, as to a warning having been given?

Of course, the first thing I shall do when I leave this House will be to ask about these suggested warnings. I know nothing of them.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman consulted the police authorities, and consented to the withdrawal of police protection?

Yes, and I consulted my colleagues, too.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, from this moment forward, take care that eve person whom the Government regard as a "distinguished person" in relation to this matter shall be carefully guarded, lest there be reprisals for the arrest of these men?

They regard only themselves as "distinguished."

Yes; of course, the guard will be renewed.

I mean for every distinguished person in relation to this matter.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

What does my hon. and learned Friend mean by "ecclesiastical purposes?

All I can say is that there are a very large number of parishes which unite for civil purposes, as well as ecclesiastical purposes. There are a certain number which are only joined for ecclesiastical purposes, and not for civil purposes as well. Perhaps some hon. Member who understands this will tell why it is. As to why the difference is made I cannot say. Quite frankly, I object to the Bill altogether, but this new Clause, at all events, limits the Bill.

I can quite understand the point of view put by my hon. and learned Friend, but I am afraid I cannot accept this Clause, which would really stultify the whole purpose of this Bill. The object of this Bill is simply to remedy an error of drafting in the Act of 1920. Under the Act of 1918, the rate of tithe was reduced, and that had the effect of reducing some of the income of the clergy. I do not want to go into the justification for that. We must go back to the Act of 1891, which places the whole burden of paying the tithe on the landowner, and the Church owes its position to-day very largely to the sacrifice which the landowners then accepted. That is the reason why it became impossible for the landowner in 1918, when he got no benefit from the increased price of corn in increased rent, to pay an enormously increased rate of tithe, which was due to the rise in the price of corn, which did not go into his pocket at all. The origin of the Act of 1918 was due to the initiative of the clergy in a part of England which is very heavily tithed, who knew it would be impossible for the landowners to pay that tithe out of the old rents they were receiving, and to their honour and credit—and I desire to acknowledge it—they put forward the suggestion, which was the actual suggestion adopted by the Government, that the rate of tithe then in force, namely, 109, should be perpetuated for a number of years in order to adjust the burden between the tithe-owner and tithe-payer.

The second new Clause (Application of Agriculture Rates Act, 1896, a. 3), proposed to be moved by the hon. Member for the Aldershot Division (Viscount Wolmer), is not in order, being outside the scope of the Bill.

I beg to move to leave out the word "holds" ["holds more than one benefice"], and to insert instead thereof the words

"shall, after the passing of this Act, become the holder of".

indicated dissent.

In regard to what has just fallen from my right hon. Friend on the general question, I note he has taken the House back to ancient history. He did not take the House quite far enough back. If he was going into ancient history at all, he might have gone to the Act of 1840 and the interpretation which has been put upon it in relation to the parson's income. There is a very good reason for believing that the present is altogether a misinterpretation of the law, and that the parson's income ought not to be subject to rates at all. But that is a very big question.

No!

Well, I venture to differ. Under the Bill as it now stands, the clergyman who has accepted a second benefice, with all the increased responsibilities, worry, and cost, under the belief, as he had every reason to believe, that the law was that he would still be able to gain some benefit from the Act of 1920, now, by the action of the present Bill, as it stands, will be put in a position he never contemplated when he accepted the second benefice. The object of this Amendment is to limit the scope of the Bill to those cases where a parson takes two benefices together in the future, so that he should do so, if he wishes, with his eyes open, and knowing what the state of the law is.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not know quite what the Noble Lord means by this Bill being retrospective, because no clergyman will have to repay anything. Of course, it would be quite improper in the case of a clergyman who has had the benefit of the judgment that he should repay any benefit that he has already received. What he calls being retrospective is, that a man who has had the benefit of the judgment, or has recently accepted a living, will find that when this Bill becomes an Act, there will be an Act of Parliament adversely affecting him. This House often passes laws which surprise people a good deal, and they sometimes find that they have to pay sums of money which they never expected to pay. But you cannot call that retrospective. If the Noble Lord can show me any way in which this Bill is retrospective, I shall be most happy to amend it.

I have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend with great interest, and I heard with some surprise his doctrine that the clergy are, as compared with other ratepayers, wealthy persons. In that contention I think he is mistaken, because there are very few large farmers who are not a great deal better off than many of our rural clergy. Therefore, I think it is not possible to deal with this question by that sort of appeal. The Amendment is to the effect that where a clergyman has taken a living on a certain understanding of the law, he should not be placed unexpectedly in a worse position than that in which he already finds himself. Where the class we are dealing with are defenceless and very poor, this is a consideration of no little weight. If we were considering a comprehensive Measure dealing with all the anomalies which concern tithe rent-charge, if we were going to re-open the whole question, what my right hon. Friend says would be a very important relevant consideration. My right hon. Friend, zealous and sympathetic as he pretends to be in regard to the interests of the clergy, nevertheless proposes to do nothing in their interests, and he is simply favouring the class to which he himself belongs. He is a large rural ratepayer, and naturally smypathises with them. He sees their grievances very vividly, and he is intervening to relieve a single anomaly, or what he calls a mistake in drafting.

I regret that on this matter I cannot see eye to eye with my right hon. Friend the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer). No one is more anxious to help the poor clergy than I am, and no one advocates more strongly than I do that they ought to be relieved of these charges. This Bill suggests that the Act of 1920 shall not apply where one man holds two or more livings. I am inclined to think that that would have been the view even of the supporters of the Act of 1920, which was especially an Act to assist poor individuals and remedy some of the grievances as they affected poor individuals. We are now told that the individuals who are to be relieved are not necessarily the poorest individuals. Some of these clergy may hold two livings each amounting to £290, and they will get relief on the whole of the tithe because both livings come under £300. I do not think that the clergy desire to take advantage of anything that was not the intention of the Act. When we come to the Bill before the House I am inclined to support it.

This is not a Government Bill, but it is based upon an Act passed by the Government two years ago, and, therefore, I ought to say something about it. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that by the Act of 1920 we did intend to give relief to the poorest of the clergy. We did intend to relieve altogether from the payment of rates on tithe those clergy who had less than £300 a year and to halve the rates in the case of those whose incomes were less than £500 a year, but we never for a moment intended or thought that it was possible where a man was receiving £600 or £700 a year because his income was derived from two beneficies, he should get the advantage of the Act that a man who received a smaller income from one benefice did not get. It is perfectly true that this little Bill, strictly limited as it is, does remove a grievance which is felt in a great many country districts by other ratepayers. It removes the advantage of an unexpected windfall enjoyed by certain clergy, which, so far as the Government are concerned, was never intended for them at all. I am sure that my Noble Friend and others will not accuse me of any want of sympathy for the clergy. I would gladly, in my personal capacity, have done a great deal more for them than was done by the Act of 1920, and I agree that the time must come very shortly when the whole of this matter will have to be reconsidered. The present Act is a temporary one, and we shall have to reconsider the whole matter before 1926. This particular Bill, for which I am not responsible, deals with one limited point and in the interests of the Church, apart from everything else, I do advise my hon. Friends not to oppose it and not to try to whittle it away.

I am afraid that I find myself in acute opposition to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he realises in the least the injustice that has been done to the clergy by his predecessor and by himself in regard to this matter.

By myself?

Yes, first by the Tithe Act, 1918.

I was not responsible for the Act in 1918. I was responsible for the Act of 1920, from which they get some advantage.

I agree that they get some advantage, but as I said at the time, it is very slight. The utmost they got was that those who held benefices under £300 should have exemption from rates and that those who held benefices under £500 should have partial exemption. If it had been a question of income, it would have been said that a person who had an income of less than £300 should be entitled to it, and that those with an income of more than £300 should not be entitled to it, but it was perfectly well known that a person with a small benefice might have private means. Some of them have private means, and they get the benefit and were intended to have the benefit of the Act. I do object to Members of the Government coming down and talking about an error of drafting in an Act for which they are responsible, which the House of Commons has passed after careful consideration, and upon which the Law Courts have given a decision. The right hon. Gentleman brought in that Act and was responsible for it. It was a very small concession to the clergy, and I said so at the time. We have now got a decision upon it in favour of exemption, and the right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to vote against the Amendment; which really means that where two or three small benefices are joined the holder shall get this advantage quite irrespective of his private income. My Noble Friend who spoke just now is no doubt equally with myself opposed to the whole Bill. This Amendment simply says that if this is to he the rule in the future, and it never has been so in the past, the Bill shall apply only as from to-day. I submit that that is a perfectly fair point to put forward. The fact remains that if a man did last year take a joint living which had been a separate living before, he undertook all the responsibilties attached to it, and he also took it on the basis that the parish would have to find a residue of the rates on the tithes. This Bill alters that position. It does not deal with the position of the person who has a vested interest, so to say, at the present time. This is a concession which is only a small concession even to a man with two livings. It does not necessarily follow, because he has two livings, that he is a rich man. He has the expenses of the two livings to keep up. I wish we could deal with the whole question, but that is not likely to be attempted for some time to come, and having regard to the loss which the poorer clergy sustained by the Act of 1918, and the very narrow nature of the concession made by the Act of 1920, I suggest that it is a wrong policy to now attempt to whittle away that concession. The Bill should be made to apply only to those who took livings knowing what the law was going to be. Under the circumstances I shall support the Amendment.

I do not see how the Amendment alters the Clause. I should have thought that the meaning of the two was exactly the same. My Noble Friend who moved the Amendment spoke of the Clause as being retrospective. I do not wish to pit my opinion against that of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) who has just spoken, but, personally, I do not think the Clause is retrospective. I am sorry I did not hear the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). He appears to have referred to the necessity—and I entirely agree with him —for a larger dealing with this subject than can be undertaken in any Amendment of the Act of 1920. The whole question of the rating of tithes is a very difficult one. It is an anomaly, really, that tithes should be subject to rates at all. That goes back to historical causes which we cannot enter into at the present time. Apart from that, I really do not see that this Bill, which has been brought in to deal with the Act of 1920, is unjust. I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken that it involves the whittling away of the very small concession which appears to have been given by the Act of 1920.

I hope the Noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment. I am quite sure that, in his endeavour to help his Church, and he is most sincere in that respect, he is unwittingly desiring to continue an injustice to a great many other ratepayers. The Noble Lord referred to the rich farmer in the parish, and made a special allusion to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill. There are, however, other ratepayers in the parish besides the rich farmer, even assuming that the rich farmer exists, and I am not quite sure of that in a good many parishes. So far, however, as the other ratepayers are concerned, their awakening was a very rude one when the 1920 Act was put into operation. They felt that a great injustice was being done to them, because, having been accustomed to pay a certain amount of rates, they suddenly discovered that by the operation of the Act they were called upon also to pay the parson's rates, as they expressed it. To the Nonconformist element that was a very great grievance indeed. I hope that, since one section is left, at any rate, the opportunity of receiving benefits under the 1920 Act, the. Noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

In this matter I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for North East Leeds (Mr. Birchall). He has, as the House knows, taken a very active part in doing what he can for the poorer clergy, and I in my humble way have also made some endeavours in that direction. In this case, however, I cannot see that I can do other than oppose this Amendment. I am one of those who think it is an anomaly that the parson should pay rates upon his tithe, because, as everyone knows, he pays rates upon his vicarage and so on in the same way as any other householder. Everyone who is rated in respect of land has a similar grievance, in that they are rated upon the raw material of their trade, as no one else is. The other ratepayers have been receiving, in respect of tithe, the benfit of getting rates paid by the parson which the parson ought not to be called upon to pay at all. He has been paying something for which he has been receiving no benefit whatsoever. That, however, is a bigger question outside the present one. Those who pay in respect of land—and the tithe is simply rated because it is a hereditament which is supposed to come out of land—are all suffering the same grievance, because land is rated more highly and in an unfairer way than anything else. With regard to this particular injustice which has fallen on the other agricultural ratepayers, that, as I think is admitted by anyone who really knows anything about it, was a mistake in the drafting of the Act. I know with what surprise, and in some cases joy, incumbents found that they were going to receive a benefit from this mistake. Of course, it was very pleasant to them, but at the same time it was a surprise and a mistake. I do not see that there is anything to be done except, as far as we can, to put that mistake right, because, although it was very fortunate for the time being for those who received the benefit, it did throw a very heavy burden upon the other ratepayers, who were also paying rates in respect of land.

I should have been glad could I have supported any of the Amendments which have been presented, but, as a whole-hearted supporter of the Act of 1920, I am anxious that it should be applied loyally 'in the spirit and in the letter. The object of that Act was to relieve the poorer categories of clergy. It was not meant to relieve clergy whose aggregate income came to more than £500 a year. As the Act stands, however, it will obviously do what was never intended. For instance, it was never intended that a clergyman with an income of £550 a year should be let off rates entirely. It was not even intended that he should be let off with half rates. But if the Act remains as it stands, a man holding two benefices of £275 each, and who, therefore, gets an income of £550 a year, will benefit. It seems to me that this Bill is an honest and an inevitable Measure, if the purpose of the 1920 Act is to be carried out. I do not think there is any danger of the Bill acting retrospectively. If there were I should support the Noble Lord in any Amendment he might make with a view to preventing that. The Bill, as it stands, seems to me to be an honest attempt to carry out the intentions of the Act of 1920, and therefore I support it.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said that this Amendment would have no effect on the Bill, but I think it would have considerable effect. The Bill, as I read it, is certainly not retrospective, that is to say, it will not compel those clergymen who have succeeded in getting a reduction in their rates to make up the arrears of the rotes which they would have had to pay if the Bill had not been in existence. As I understand the Amendment, however, its effect would be this: Supposing that I were a clergyman and held two of these livings, for the future I should be exempt from rates in the way intended by the Act of 1920. But supposing that my hon. Friend were to take those two benefices in a year's time, then, if this Amendment were passed, he would have to pay. That is the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment would reserve to those clergymen who are already enjoying the benefit of this omission the right to enjoy that benefit as long as they remain holders of the benefices; but, if a new clergyman were instituted to two benefices, that new clergyman would have to pay the rates which the prior occupant would not have had to pay. I think that is the exact position. I generally have a fairly clear view of, at any rate, what I think is right, but really, at the present moment, I do not in the least know what to do. I can see the difficulty, and I am not quite sure that the Amendment will not cause hardship. I am not at all sure that I am impressed by the argument which has been used about the ratepayers. After all, speaking broadly, there is no class of the community, especially in the country, whose incomes are so small and who find it so hard to live and to keep up appearances as country clergymen Every other class in the country except the landlord has benefited recently. Whatever may he the position of the farmer at present, I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite that there are no rich farmers.

I did not say there were no rich farmers.

I understood the hon. Member to express a doubt as to whether there were or not.

I have no doubt whatever. I know there are rich farmers.

If the hon. Member said that at present the farming industry was in a bad position I should agree with him, but they have done well in the past and there is no reason why they should do badly in the present. But the clergyman received no benefit whatever during the War. The labourer did. His wages were more than doubled. The clergyman's stipend was not increased in any kind of way. The landlord was practically in the same position. So I think it is hardly right to say the ratepayers will have to pay and therefore we should put this burden upon the clergyman in order to relieve the ratepayer. After all, the ratepayer is very largely responsible for the enormous increase of the rates. If he chose to vote properly he could stop the increase and reduce his rates, whereas the clergyman by himself has no power in any direction. I have little sympathy with the ratepayer because it is his own fault that the rates have been increased in this enormous way. I am not quite certain how I shall vote. I should like to hear on the Third Reading what the ideas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and the Noble Lord opposite, are. If there is a division I should be inclined to take no part in it.

I was not a Member of the House when the 1920 Act was passed and, therefore, it is difficult for me to judge what was intended. I can only judge by what the Act actually says. I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) that it is a mere technicality as to whether this tithe is derived from a single or a double benefice. To my mind it makes a very large difference indeed. The holder of a double benefice has a great many more expenses and a vast number of other responsibilities which make a very great difference to him. But there is one aspect which I do not think has been touched upon. I know from experience that, as the result of this Act of 1920, in certain parts of the country the parsons are being re-assessed on their vicarages and anything else they have to pay rates on very much more highly in consequence of the fact that they have derived benefit from this 1920 Act, and that is a point which ought to be taken into consideration. It is true, perhaps, that this 1920 Act was, to them, a surprise and came to them as a very small windfall, but, in consequence of that Act, they are in some cases being re-assessed much more highly, and any benefit they may have derived from the Act is going to be annulled in a very short time. I really think this question might have been left over until the whole matter was considered. I have no doubt which way I shall vote. I shall support the Amendment.

I beg to move, after the word "benefice"["holds more than one benefice"], to insert the words "the joint net incomes of which exceed four hundred pounds."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have great sympathy with the argument put forward by my hon. Friend and by my Noble Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, because this is the scale which Parliament has given, and the object of the Bill is merely to give effect to what Parliament agreed to in the 1920 Act. I quite understand that £400 a year is a small income, but the limit fixed by Parliament was £300 a year. This Amendment is interlocked with the last Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the Noble Lord, but there is a great deal of difference between that Amendment and the Amendment now proposed, which would continue to place the burden upon the ratepayers. The other Amendment deals with Income Tax, which is a matter to be dealt with by this House. If the later Amendment were necessary I should certainly be glad to accept it, but I hope to show, when the time comes, that that is already within the Income Tax rules and that full allowance will be made. It often happens that united benefices which are only nominally two, and in which exemption has been obtained, really only have one church and one school, and, therefore, no additional expense is imposed. There are, however, other parishes where a claim for extra expenses does occur.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there are many united parishes which have only one church and school?

Yes. I have cases in my own district. There are a great many cases of that kind. On the other hand, there are united benefices which do involve more expense, more work, and more time, but that is already allowed for under the Income Tax Acts. I have every sympathy with the general arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, and if Parliament had agreed to a scale of £400, instead of £300, I should have raised no objection to the Amendment, but all that this Bill does is to put right what has now been established as a drafting Amendment in the Act of 1920, and I cannot accept the Amendment.

My right hon. Friend says that the Income Tax Acts provide for this case, but the Income Tax Acts do not provide for the difficulty in regard to rates. As I understand it, the Amendment now moved provides that where a person has two benefices, that the advantage given in regard to the payment of rates should be given to him, provided that the joint incomes of the two benefices do not amount to more than £400 a year. My right hon. Friend replies that the Income Tax Acts provide for certain allowances, but that is only in regard to income. They do not provide for the difficulty in regard to rates. The Amendment is, that a clergyman who, owing to the fact that he has two benefices, has to incur extra expenditure, should receive some allowance. Otherwise, as I understand the argument, that particular person will be in a worse position than his fellow clergymen who happen to have only the one benefice. My right hon. Friend says that there are cases of two parishes with only one church, but I should think that those are very rare cases. But whatever legislation you pass, you cannot prevent certain hard cases arising. In this case we might, perhaps, benefit one or two people who really ought not to benefit. On the other hand, there would be the danger of doing injustice to a considerable number of men. Therefore, what we have got to consider is whether what we propose is going improperly to benefit a few people, while at the same time we are properly benefitting a much larger number of people. To secure that result I shall certainly support the Amendment.

I would ask the promoters of this Amendment to appreciate the seriousness of the proposition which they are making. When it comes to a question of rates, the taking into account of the expenses of earning income does not arise, and they are introducing for the first time the question of the expense of earning your revenue as being a subject to be considered in legislation in paying local rates. That is a principle that can be extended later on. The claim made by one section of the community for relief of rates on this ground may be made by other sections, and I think that that is a most dangerous thing.

The clergyman is the only person who pays rates on his income.

That is one of the matters that were referred to when the Act of 1920 was under discussion. If he is paid one-tenth of the produce of the land, the tithe owner is in a position of the actual tiller of the soil. But you do not make this exemption in the case of the other people who till the soil and take the other nine-tenths of the produce, and I could not at that time understand why this exemption should be made in the case of the titheowners. I am not sure whether I did not divide the House on it at the time. And now when that principle is so much in dispute, and the attempt is being made under cover of this Bill, the excuse for which is, I understand, to rectify some blemish in the Act, the Noble Lord and those whom he represents are seeking to give a much further extension to that principle. That is against public policy, and ought never to have been included in a private Member's Bill which is discussed on Friday. While one can sympathise with the objects which they have in view, I feel certain that the introduction of an innovation with reference to rates and abatements of rates is one of which we should not approve. No ratepayer can be relieved of his responsibility with regard to rates, as in that case other sections of the community will be trying to get the same relief for themselves, and once the principle has been conceded it will be very difficult to oppose it being extended to other classes of the community. For that reason I shall vote against the Amendment.

The hon. Member, I think, is not correct in the suggestions he has made. As the law stands at present, a clergyman holding joint livings for £170 a year each, which may be £340 in all, gets exemption in paying his rates. This Bill proposes to alter that, and says that those people shall be liable to that extent. All that this Amendment suggests is that that alteration shall not be carried out in its full effect, and that it shall not apply in cases where 2400 is received. There is no new principle involved in the Amendment. The Amendment merely says that the alteration of the law shall not apply to the full extent, but only, as it were, to a half-way house. The question of principle has nothing to do with the Bill at all. The question of expense in earning incomes applies to Income Tax, and you cannot extend this principle to the question of rates beyond the case of tithes, because the only person who has to pay rates upon his income is the clergyman. The Amendment is merely a modification of the Bill, and to that extent I shall vote for it, because I am opposed to the Bill.

I would like to point out what would be the effect of this Amendment. What would happen would be that one man would be exempt from his rates altogether because his income is under £300. Another man will get a similar exemption because his income happens to be £400, and yet there would be no real distinction. It might be in some cases that the union of bene- fices does cause additional work. On the other hand I know many cases in country districts where two small parishes lying together have been united and where there is much less work than there may be in the case of a single parish of a very large character. In that case the man who happens to have two small parishes will receive an advantage over the other man who is really doing more work. A further point raised was that the extra expense should be taken into account. The House should remember that under the Act of 1920 the amount of the income obtained, whether there was an exemption or not, has to be arrived at by statutory declaration which is to be calculated according to the rules of the Income Tax, and it is laid down in those rules that any expense to which a clergyman is put in the discharge of his duty, and which is necessary in order that he may earn his income, may be deducted. I agree that if a clergyman is put to extra expense in consequence of a union of benefices there is a case for drawing the line higher as the Amendment proposes, but the income is arrived at in accordance with certain rules.

My right hon. Friend has developed a very curious conscience,