^HiL: 
 
 ^&!^ 
 
 ■:m:
 
 
 L I E> R.ARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVER51TY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 6 
 
 TITHES 
 
 I % ppj; %%'i^ at %i ^\mw& 
 
 ( MAYS1,1883. 
 
 \ 
 
 \ — 
 
 By 
 
 GRANVILLE LEVESON GOWER.
 
 [The Third Annual Session of the Rochester Diocesan Confei'ence teas 
 held in the Corn Exchange, Rochester, on Wednesday and 
 Thursday, May 30 and 31. Amongst the Reeolutions icas one 
 on the subject of tithe, ichich icas submitted by Mr. Granville 
 Levesom Gower, icho read the paper here printed in the form of 
 n. puniphlct.]
 
 T I T H K S: 
 
 THUESDAY, MAT 31, 1883. 
 
 Mr. Leveson Gowek read the paper which follows, and submitted 
 this resolution on the subject of Tithe : — 
 
 " That the law in regard to tithe requires amendment, and that it be referred to 
 the Law and Parliamentary Committee to consider and report on the subject." 
 
 The subject of Tithe is one that at the present time occupies public 
 attention. Like many others, it has been brought to the front by a 
 long period of agi-ieultural depression, and in this country, owing to 
 the large acreage tmder hops and under fruit cultivation, the question 
 occupies exceptional prominence under the head of extraordinary 
 tithe. The subject is one that has long interested me. In my opinion 
 it presses for a speedy settlement, and I shall be quite satisfied if I 
 can raise a practical discussion upon it. The collective wisdom of the 
 Agricultural Commission suggests a very slight change in the matter 
 of ordinary and none in extraordinary tithe. I am bold enough to 
 propose some, although I admit the difficulty that attends on any 
 change ; still I think that both in the incidence of the tithe and in 
 the method of collecting it useful changes may be made ; and we 
 shall, I trust, arrive at some conclusion by a full and free discussion 
 in such a meeting as this. When the question was first proposed for 
 consideration the Very Rev. the Dean was somewhat afraid, I think, 
 that I should take you back to the Pentateuch , and from there 
 traverse the history of tithe until its introduction into this country. 
 I confess that the archasological aspect of the question has many
 
 attractions, but I shall not enter into it ; e are concerned with the 
 practical working of tithe in the present day, and the grievances, or 
 supposed grievances, under which the tithe-payer suffers. May I 
 say thus much, that I trust the day is far distant when the principle 
 which guided our forefathers in imposing tithe, viz., that of all which 
 we possess, a certain proportion is due to the service of God, will 
 cease to be recognized, or when for political reasons, or from reasons 
 of so-called religious equality, the State will proceed to abolish 
 specific religious endowments altogether. If the time should come 
 when the Church of England {quod avertat Deus) should be disen- 
 dowed, may we hope that at any rate the revenues it enjoys may be 
 preserved for the purposes of religion, and not handed over to secular 
 objects, frittered away in compensation to individuals, or scramble*! 
 for by landlords. Incomes many times larger than those now derived 
 from tithes are wanted to deal successfully with the mass of irreligi ..' 
 ignorance, and vice which an ever-increasing population brings "a 
 its train. On the principle of endowment. Lord Hatherley, astr '^ 
 Liberal, says in his autobiography, " I am convinced that the Chur. 
 of England alone, from its organization, the wealth of its members, 
 from its endowments, and from its parochial subdivisions, has the 
 means of bringing home religious instruction to the people." 
 
 I wish at the outset to state that I speak as a tithe-paj'er to a con- 
 siderable amount, and not as a tithe-owner. I trust, however, that 
 this has not exercised undue influence on my judgment. I confess 
 that the more I have gone into the question, the more I am struck 
 with the completeness and care with which the Act of 1836 waS 
 drawn ; it seems to have anticipated, and, as far as the altered cir- 
 cumstances of the present time can allow of it, to have provided for 
 every objection which might arise ; and though I venture to suggest 
 certain particulars in which I think the present system in respect of 
 tithes may be amended, I can hardly do so in fairness upon the 
 ground of any great wrong or injustice to be redressed, but rather as 
 a matter of expediency, in the interests of peace and goodwill, and 
 with a view to meeting the objections which are raised in the present 
 day. The Re-v. S. T. Gibson, B.D., in a pamphlet on the tithe 
 
 ^*^\
 
 question, * refers the origin of parochial tithes, upon the authority 
 of Selden, to the year 1215, from which time, that writer tells us, 
 there has been a recognized obligation to pay them, not to some 
 religious object, such as had existed long before, but a specific allot- 
 ment of thera to the parochial incumbent, and he goes on to say : — 
 " "We may accordingly assert that for many centuries the owners of 
 the soil have had no legal right to that part of the rent which formerly 
 was the equivalent of tithes iu kind and now of tithe rent-charge. 
 They are not really taken from the landowner. They are a reserved 
 rent, which has never belonged either to him or to those from whom 
 he derived those possessions. The only landowners who could with 
 any plausibility say that they lost by tithe-rent-charge are those who 
 can show that they have inherited their estates by unbroken succession 
 from a date earlier than 1215. The title of the tithe owner is older 
 than that of the landowner. The latter has received his property 
 subject to the claim." We may, therefore, at starting, brush away 
 the cobwebs which, either from ignorance or party agitation, have 
 gathered round the question, and acknowledge at once, that as far 
 as ordinary tithe goes, it is in no sense a hardship upon labourer, 
 tenant-farmer, or even landowner ; it is a prior charge upon the 
 land, like the land-tax ; a charge subject to which the owner holds 
 his land ; in assessing the saleable value of land it is taken into 
 account ; in the letting of land it is practically so much rent to be 
 deducted before it comes into the owner's hand, a reserved rent 
 which diminishes 'pro tanto the actual rent that would otherwise be 
 paid. Our inquiry, therefore, will be limited to the incidence of it, 
 not to its nature ; and with a view to this inquii-y, it will be best 
 to notice in order the objections that are urged in the present day, and 
 the changes proposed. 
 
 I. — It is generally suggested, and the idea finds favour with the 
 Agricultural Commissioners, who recommend it in their report, tha^ 
 the ordinary tithe shall be paid by the landlord, and not by th^ 
 tenant. This may sound like an important change, but in fact it is 
 merely taking money out of one pocket instead of the other. What 
 
 * A Discussion on the Objections made to the present Tithe Law, 1881.
 
 6 TITHE. 
 
 is tithe ? It is merely rent under another name. I have had to do 
 •with scores of farm agreements ; what is the regular process by 
 which the value of land for letting is arrived at ? It is worth so 
 much, say 30s. per acre. "What is the tithe ? 4s. per acre. What are 
 the rates ? 3s. in the pound. The land is then let to the tenant at 
 the figure which remains after making these (ieductions. In the one 
 case the land will be .let to the tenant at a rent allowing for the tithe, 
 jn the other tithe will not be considered in estimating the letting 
 value. The jaroposal is that it should be collected in the same 
 way as the land t&x, which by law the tenant is allowed to deduct from 
 his rent, and which in practice now is usually paid directly by the 
 landlord, and this is really the requirement of the Act which 
 regulates tithes now. It is only by custom that the tenant pays them. 
 This alteration is one which I have advocated more than once on 
 public occasions, but I have done so not on the ground that any 
 principle is involved, or that it would bring about any great change, 
 but simply because it would tend to do away with those unhappy col- 
 lisions which from time to time arise between the rector of a parish 
 and the tithe-payer, which excite irritation against the Church of 
 England, and impair the influence of the clergyman. The present 
 system is also unsatisfactory in this respect, that the clergy naturally 
 ehrink from putting the law in force by the remedy which they have 
 of levying a distress upon the tenant's property, and therefore arrears 
 are allowed to run on, and the ultimate resort is to the landlord, 
 although he may have no means of knowing the amount of the tenant's 
 indebtedness. If the present system is to remain in force, it should 
 certainly be enacted that no tithe-owner who had not taken steps to 
 enforce payment should be able to recover from the landlord 
 arrears for more than one year previo\is to the current year. I 
 foresee certain difficulties in the change ; the law wiU have to be 
 altered which now gives power to recover from the produce of the land, 
 and there is this objection, that whereas the occupier is always on 
 the spot, and to be got at, the owner is not. Speaking as a land- 
 lord, the change will not add to our happiness ; it will mean one more 
 visit of the collector, and in making deductions to our tenants I am 
 afraid the fact will slip out of sight tiiat they no longer are burdened
 
 "with tlie tithe ; and of tMs I am quite certain, that in bad times we 
 shall go hat in hand to the clergy, and shall ask in vain as needy land- 
 lords for those kind and liberal deductions which under similar cir- 
 cumstances they have extended to the tenants. And here may I make 
 a remark upon the practice which in the late bad times has prevailed 
 very extensively of the clergy making remissions in respect of tithe. 
 It has been pressed upon them very urgently by the tithe-payer, and 
 has been conceded by them from motives of kindliness and gen- 
 erosity ; but may I say how exceedingly mischievous a course I con- 
 sider it, and how it tends to encourage the idea that the tithe is a 
 tenant's charge, and stands in the same category as farm rent. If 
 the tithe-owner is a wealthy man, and chooses to say to his par- 
 ishioners, ' ' The times are bad ; you must be in difficulties owing to 
 the losses in your business. I propose to make you a present out of 
 my own pocket," to that I have nothing to object ; but that the 
 person on whom the collection of the tithe devolves should have 
 instructions to remit 10, 15, or 20 per cent., as the case may be, from 
 the tithe, is a practice utterly indefensible on principle — one that 
 causes invidious distinctions to be drawn between those who do and 
 those who do not adopt it (either from a conscientious objection or 
 from inability to make the sacrifice) and is playing into the hands 
 of those who are attacking the tithe merely with a view to further 
 attacks upon property. I feel this very strongly, that so long as the 
 law remains as it is the tithe-owner ought not, in fact has no right, to 
 allow any abatement of the tithe. Of many evils this must 
 necessarily result from it, either that the landlord in making a 
 reduction of rent expects that the same will be made in the tithe, 
 and makes a less reduction in consequence, in which case the remis- 
 sion of tithe is really made to the landlord, or else the landlord makes 
 Buch a reduction as he intends to cover tithe as well as rent, in 
 which case the tenant obtains a remission twice over. 
 
 II. — It is objected that the averages are taken over too long a 
 period, viz. , seven years, and that they should be reduced to three, or 
 even two. The reason that this matter has acquired such prominence 
 of late is that during the past disastrous years the tithe has been 
 considerably above par. For instance, in 1880, after the ruinous
 
 8 TITHE. 
 
 season of 1879, the ^tithe-payer was paying £109 17s. It has fallen 
 this year to £100 4s. 9f cl ,, and there is every prospect of a continued 
 decrease. Bat coincidently with very lowpiices and bad harvests the 
 tithe-average remained exceptionally high. This is of course very 
 undesirable ;i butiiit is a question whether the much shorter average 
 would not tend to make the fluctuations even more sudden. A longer 
 average seems to give a fairer measure of value ; and in the matter of 
 farm lands and long agreements to make a calculation more easy. 
 Mr, Gibson in his pamphlet (page 14) gives statistics to show that 
 under a short system^of^averages the price of [tithe in some of the 
 late bad years would have been higher still. It all seems to me to 
 point to this, that a fixed sum £100 of tithe to represent £100 of 
 money, not calculated at all on corn average, would be the best change; 
 but in these^days of prospective decline in the value of tithe it may 
 be -difficult to^get the tithe-payer to agree to this arrangement. 
 
 III. — The objection that is raised as to the way in which the averages 
 are taken and the returns made from the different market towns is 
 one which, if it^does exercise much influence on the value, is a matter 
 provided for by the Tithe Act of 1836, and can be remedied by a due 
 enforcement of [the law. I would only remark that it is a mistake 
 to argue, as some do, that because wheat has fallen considerably in 
 price of late years that^therefore it stands to reason that the tithe 
 ought to have fallen in the like ratio. The value of tithe depends 
 more upon barley and oats, and both those kinds of com are higher 
 in price than at the time of the commutation, and are more extensively 
 cultivated. This objection, like the former, would cease under a 
 system of fixed money value. 
 
 IV. — Increased facilities, it is said, should also be given for re- 
 demption. This sounds at any rate promising, and if only the magic 
 source could be found from which the already overburdened land- 
 lord could find the means to redeem, and the scheme be propounded 
 which should be fair as between the tithe-owner and tithe-payer, 
 what an excellent plan it would be. Unfortunately the suggestions 
 most in favour amount simply to a confiscation of some ten per cent, 
 of the tithe -owner's property, after deducting fifteen per cent, for 
 poor rate and expenses of the collection. It was assumed by a
 
 TITHE. 9 
 
 "writer in the Thnesvi-ho signed himself ' ' Lajonan " that the tithe-owner 
 did not receive more than £75 clear for every £100 of tithe. On this 
 assumption it was proposed that, taking the total rent-charge in Eng- 
 land at £4,000,000, this sum, as redemption, was to be paid direct 
 by the landowners to a Government office. Of this sum 75 per 
 cent., or £3,000,000, was to be paid by the office to the tithe-owners 
 each year, free of all deductions, the remaining £1,000,000 to be 
 annually invested in consols as a redemption fimd. He calculated that 
 in 47 years, from this annual investment at 3 per cent, at compound 
 interest, there would be a sufficient fund to provide an aimual in- 
 come of £3,000,000, and that the tithe rent charge would then cease 
 absolutely. A deduction of 25 per cent, from the gross is the calcula- 
 tion on which Mr. Inderwick's Bill proceeds in regard to extraordinary 
 tithe. It is clear, I think, that so large a deduction would amount to 
 a confiscation of property, and is a method which, outside Ireland, at 
 any rate, would hardly be applied. I venture to suggest that the 
 average value of tithe calculated since the Act of 1836 should be the 
 starting point ; from that should be deducted the expense of collec- 
 tion, which may be estimated at about 5 per cent, on an average 
 (although in many cases it is much higher), and the poor rates, which 
 may be taken as from 10 to 12 per cent. The average value of tithe 
 since 1836 is £103 2s. There is, however, this difficulty, that we are 
 always on shifting ground, the value changing from year to year ; and 
 therefore it might be better to take £100 as the fixed value, from 
 that deduct 15 per cent, for rates and collection, and £85 would remain 
 as the price for redemption. I am perfectly aware that this would 
 not be accepted by all tithe-owners, and would be considered to in* 
 volve a large sacrifice of income. At the same time, I believe that 
 there is a large body of the clergy and lay owners who are desirous 
 of removing the question from the arena of party politics, and who 
 would welcome such a change, even at some loss of personal in- 
 come. Where the best cannot be had, it is often the wisest course 
 to accept the best under the circumstances. The sturdy resistance 
 of the oak may be more to the taste of some, and they are not to be 
 blamed for it ; the more pliant disposition of the willow may be more 
 likely to weather the storm. Earl Stanhope's Bill, now before the
 
 10 TITHE. 
 
 House of Lords, proposes these enactments, which seem to me to be 
 in the main worthy of support. 1. That the owner of lands shall be 
 liable for the tithe as between himself and his tenant, and out of this 
 the parties cannot contract themselves. 2. The tithe-owner is to have 
 a right of personal action against the land-owner without losing the 
 remedy of distress. This is rather a large provision, and will require 
 modifying, because it not only allows him to resort to the land to 
 satisfy his claim, but to the whole fortune of the land-owner. 3. A 
 deduction of 3 per cent, to be allowed on payment within one month. 
 (I see no good reason for this clause. ) 4. The tithe rent charge to be 
 fixed at a given sum and not to vary; corn averages no longer to be re- 
 quired.* Mr. Stanley Leighton's Bill, the "Tithe Rent Charge 
 Recovery Act," enables a tenant to recover from the landlord the 
 tithe rent charge he has paid, and makes void all covenants to a con- 
 trary effect. Both Bills are set out on the last page but one of the 
 Report of the Law and ParUamentary Committee of this Conference. 
 Another point which arises incidentally, and is worth attention, is 
 this — whether, supposing we have got rid of corn-averages, and have 
 established the tithe as a fixed sum, some steps might not be taken to 
 remedy the inequality of its incidence. "Without proposing to tithe 
 land such as the woodland in the Weald, which is not subject to tithe» 
 most persons must be aware how very unequally tithe often presses 
 in a parish, some of the best lands, if grass or valuable building land, 
 being very lightly charged, while poor arable land of old standing 
 which now may have gone out of cultivation has a heavy charge upon 
 it. I have in my mind, amongst other instances, that of a poor hill 
 -farm (acreage about 500), the rent of which is £200, and the tithe 
 in two parishes about £90 ; or again, another where itamoimts to nearly 
 5s. an acre, the letting value being about 7s. 6d. per acre. There 
 are difficulties in the change ; but I think they might equitably be 
 made, confining the alteration within the limits of the parish, and let- 
 ting the tithe follow altered values as the Land Tax does now, basing 
 it upon the Parochial or Income Tax Assessment. Before I say a few 
 ^ords upon the extraordinary tithe, may I briefly sum up the altera- 
 
 ■ Since this was written, Earl Stanhope's Bill has been rejected.
 
 
 TITHE. 11 
 
 tions I have suggested, so as to keep them clearly before this meeting. 
 
 1. Tithe to be a fixed, not a fluctuating sum— £100 money for 
 £100 tithe. The advantages of this are, that we get rid of a 
 fluctuating tithe rent charge, high, possibly, as of late, in bad times, 
 leading thereby to agitation arising out of what one writer calls the 
 "demoralization of money embarrassment ;" giving also the clergy a 
 fixed, not an uncertain income, and, as I hope, tending to abolish 
 remissions of tithe. Objection as to seven years being too long an 
 average, and that as to returns being unfairly taken, would disappear. 
 
 2. Tithe payable by landlord, not tenant, removing thereby the 
 ground of irritation which the present system creates between clergy 
 and their parishioners. This can be obtained even if No. 1 shoul<i 
 not. 
 
 3. Facilities of redemption based on a calculation of the averages 
 taken since the Tithe Commutation Act, or by taking £100 as a fixed 
 value, deduction being made for poor rate and expenses of collection. 
 
 4. Readjustment on different lands in a parish according to their 
 altered value. 
 
 EXTKAOEDINARY TiTHE. 
 
 And now of extraordinary tithe. What is there in a name ? In this 
 case, we must admit, a great deal, and allow that to this it owes a good 
 deal of its factitious importance. The absolute failure last year in 
 many places of both the hop and fruit crop has given fresh impetus 
 to the discussion of the question. I proceed to enquire (1) how did it 
 arise ? (2) how has it worked ? and (3) how can it be fairly dealt with? 
 There can be no question that it was introduced at the request of the 
 land-owners themselves, with the concurrence in most cases of the 
 tithe-payer. The original intention of the Tithe Commutation Act 
 was to include the tithes of hops, fruit, gardens, &c., in the ordinary 
 tithe. The land-owner, however, considering that the time might coma 
 when special produce such as hops might not be cultivated, and un- 
 willing to saddle his estate in perpetuity with the charge, pressed 
 upon, and eventually induced the Commissioners to adopt, the system 
 which has since been known as extraordinary tithe. It is right to 
 ■emphasize this fact at starting, and to show that if the tithe-payer
 
 12 TITHE. 
 
 now complains of being shackled and fettered by it, it was lie who 
 wove the chains by which he is bound. I think that in principle 
 the tithe-payer was right, and in many cases he has reaped the 
 benefit of it. At the same time I do not think that it was in the 
 minds of the commissioners that the extraordinary tithe would or 
 ought to increase to an unlimited extent. This their intention 
 to class it with ordinary tithe I think proves. That it has so 
 increased in many places is due to the system devised by the tithe- 
 payer ; and although, perhaps, in strict justice, as we made our bed 
 so ought we to lie in it, there are reasons which, I think, make it 
 desirable that a limit should be put to its extension. It is undesirable 
 in these days of active competition with foreign produce to restrict 
 in any way the cultivation of the land, if it does so restrict it. A tax 
 on a particular crop is not in accordance vsdth modern and perhaps 
 sound fiscal policy ; and one would be glad by any equitable means 
 to allay the heartburning and conflict which in many places arise out 
 of it. Quot Iwmines tot sententm; and many and various have been 
 the schemes propounded — redemption calculated by the Farmers' 
 Alliance at three years' purchase, and ranging from that to so san- 
 guine a one as 31, propounded by a Kev. Canon belonging to this 
 county. Perhaps the most original and thorough-going suggestion 
 was made to the Commissioners by a Mr. Bryant, a gantleman living 
 in my own neighbourhood, who has lately purchased his estate, who 
 gave it as his opinion that extraordinary tithe should be abolished 
 without any compensation whatever. He subsequently qualified it 
 by suggesting that the nation should pay it ; but to this I am afraid 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer would raise objections. The scheme 
 which seems to find most favour, and which was strongly advocated 
 by Sir Mordaunt Wells at a large meeting held lately at Tunbridge 
 Wells, is to redeem the extraordinary tithe at a fixed composition, 
 and to place it as a permanent change upon the ordinary tithe. To 
 this I am decidedly opposed. The merit of the scheme devised in 
 1836 seems to me to be this — that instead of charging the tithes per- 
 manently with the proceeds of a crop which is acknowledged on all 
 hands to be of a fluctuating character, the extra charge is only made 
 •when the particular crop is grown. I feel most strongly that in
 
 TITHE. 13 
 
 dealing with the extraordinary tithe we are bound to keep it as it has 
 hitherto been, absolutely distidct from the ordinary. Eedeem it or 
 compound for it if you will ; and probably this would be done upon 
 terms favourable to the tithe-jDayer ; but in any such scheme the 
 lands subject to extraordinary tithe should bear the cost of it ; and 
 if it be commuted into a fixed payment, that payment should be di- 
 vided rateably among those who under the old system would have 
 been liable for extraordinarj' tithe. No one vriU. dispute that hops 
 are cultivated wdth a view to larger profits than can be made by or- 
 dinary tillage ; and taking an average of the last seven years, such 
 profits have been made. Is it not manifestly unfair that A, an 
 owner of poor land in any parish, or at all events of land which 
 could not possibly be planted with hops, should be called upon to 
 pay extra tithe for B, whose land may be thoroughly suited for them, 
 when he is not in any way to share the profits of such cultivation ? 
 "Whatever might have been done at the commutation, to throw the 
 burden now of extraordinary tithe upon the ordinary is to my mind 
 to intensify the evil. I have never been able to understand how it 
 is that the extra tithe, which in the award is declared to be so much 
 per acre, should follow the corn averages, and fluctuate with them. 
 If nothing else be done, I consider that it ought to be the sum per 
 acre fixed by the Act without any variation. Am I satisfied with 
 the present state of things ? I am not. I do not consider, as I said, 
 that the intention of the Tithe Commissioners was that extraordinary 
 tithe should go on increasing ad libitum, and I should wish to see a 
 limit put to it. The Act of 1873, which declares that extraordinary 
 tithe shall only be charged upon newly cultivated market ground, 
 where such extra tithe was distinguished at the time of the commu- 
 tation, points in that direction, and rather, I think, aggravates pre- 
 vious inequaUty. The mere accident of li-^ing in a parish subject or 
 not subject to extra tithe ought not to determine the liability of 
 newly cultivated gardens. Having admitted the principle that newly 
 cultivated gardens in parishes not subject to extraordinary tithe 
 should not be charged, the same principle should be adopted in 
 parishes subject to it ; hops or fruit gardens newly 
 •cultivated should not be made to swell the amount of
 
 14: TITHE, 
 
 extraordinary tithe already existing, but should contribute 
 rateably towards the amount now charged on a plan which I will 
 propound directly. My own parish of Titsey is not subject to extra 
 tithes, whereas Limpsfield is. I know a case on a farm of my own 
 where the tenant, in cultivating hops, studiously adheres to the 
 boundary-line of the parishes, in order to avoid the extra charge. 
 This is an anomalous state of things. The scheme I propounded at 
 a meeting of tithe-payers a short time ago was to this effect : — That 
 an average either for seven years or for a longer period should be 
 taken of the produce of extraordinary tithe ; that the charge should 
 be fixed at that point as a maximum beyond which it should not 
 extend, however much the acreage might do, while on the other 
 hand it might fall below, if the special cultivation were diminished ; 
 the 15s. per acre, or whatever the extraordinary tithe might be, still 
 being taken as the charge per acre. To make it clear. Suppose a 
 parish in which the extraordinary tithe on the average of seven or 
 more years is fixed at £30, the calculation for extra tithe being taken 
 at the original figure, say 15s. per acre. That £30 would represent 
 40 acres, subject to extra tithe, at 15s. Suppose the acreage to in- 
 crease to 60, the amount to be levied being the same, 10s. per acre 
 would be the charge to be assessed rateably. On the other hand^ 
 supposing the cultivation to decrease to 30 or 20 acres, 15s. on such 
 acreage would be the sum to be levied, viz., £22 10s., or £15 respec- 
 tively, all future plantations to come in for charge rateably. Do you 
 say that this is hard? That a limit is fixed beyond which it cannot 
 increase, while it might decrease to any extent. I say that it is liable 
 to sudden fluctuations and even extinction now ; that I do not believe 
 that the tithe-owner would suffer, because it is unlikely that the 
 acreage of hop or fruit gardens would materially decrease ; in fact, 
 the charge being smaller in proportion to the quantity cultivated^ 
 this plan might tend to increase it. I get these advantages . I still 
 recognize the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary tithe. 
 I make the charge ujDon those who grow the more paying crop ; and 
 do not impose it as a permanent charge on the ordinary tithe. 1 
 stop an unlimited increase of it, and by spreading it rateably over a 
 larger area I make the incidence of it less heavy. Regard this scheme
 
 TITHE. 15 J 
 
 with favour or disfavour, it has this cardinal principle, which I wish 
 to enforce, that ordinary tithe shall be kept quite distinct from extra- 
 ordinary, and that the former shall not be made to bear the burden 
 of the latter. As to redemption, I am afraid that at best it would be 
 a slow process unless the number of years purchase were fixed so low 
 as to be practically a confiscation of the tithe-owner's property ; and 
 that I should be sorry to see. Mr. Inderwick's Bill, which is more 
 moderate than many, proposes to take the value of £100 at £75 as a 
 basis for the redemption of the extraordinary tithe. As to payment 
 by the landlord, I consider this would be unfair. It is purely a 
 ^enant's question. He grows the crop, and does so with the know- 
 ledge that he will have to pay an extra charge. The landlord is 
 already put to the expense of building oast houses and rendering 
 himself liable to the valuation for hop-poles, &c., which is a very 
 heavy one. We should all probably agree that to leave the question 
 where it is would not be satisfactory. We want to lift it out of the 
 domain of passion and party politics ; to recognize the grievance, if 
 there is one, and to devise a settlement on fair and equitable terms. 
 I have suggested one, liable, I have no doubt, to criticism and open 
 to objections which I may have overlooked. I only beg those who 
 follow me to criticize it as an honest, and, I hope, fair attempt to 
 deal with this difficult question, and would say, 
 
 " Si quid novisii rectius istis 
 Candidus imperti, si non, his utere mecum.'' 
 
 Pkikted at the Office of the Kochestek Chueoh Chkokicle,. 
 225, Great Dover Street, BoEoroH, S.E.
 
 
 *? 
 
 5^,>S'- 
 
 M'-fl 
 
 i/L:--A 
 
 ■^2%