13 



ment dits, a I'exception de ceus qui etaient proprie^aires, n'ont r'cn 

 gagne." — {Economie Rurale, &e., p. 8, ed. 4, 1874.) 



If the qnestion of tithes is regarded from the broadest point 

 of view of national interests, is it absolutely certain that the 

 nation would gain by their so-called abolition? History might ^ 

 be searched in vain for an instance in which the plunder of f 

 Churches put a penny into the pockets of the people. ^ 



I have said that the question of tithes is really one between 

 landowners and titheowners ; and I have endeavoured to show 

 that the arrangement into which tenants enter to pay tithes 

 introduces an apparent element of unfairness. On the other 

 hand, it must be remembered that the farmer has hired his farm 

 with the full knowledge of the amount of the rent-charge, sub- 

 ject only to the fluctuations in the septennial averages, and that 

 for the last few years the fluctuations have been continuously 

 downward and to his advantage. The farmer has assumed the 

 responsibility for the tithe, against the interest of the tithe- 

 owner, and against the policy of an Act of Parliament. So long 

 as the arrangement was to his advantage he remained silent ; 

 now that it has turned against him he complains, and often 

 honestly, of the incidence of the charge. In 18G8 the tithe 

 rent-charge was only worth 100?. 13s. ; but the actual value 

 calculated on the price of corn for that year was 125?. 

 Did the farmers think it necessary then to pay the difference? 

 Will they, supposing that a war sends up prices, think it their 

 duty, if they are now granted abatements, to pay the tithe rent- 

 charges calculated upon the prices of corn in each single year of 

 agricultural prosperity? The titheowner did not profit to the 

 natural extent by the "piping times." It is hard that he should 

 now be asked to share in the loss when he was never offered a 

 share in the gain. 



Many objections arc taken to tithes. Some of them are 

 wholly frivolous. It is difficult to suppose the statements that 

 tithes raise rents or lower wages to be seriously entertained, j 

 Half the land in England is tithe-fi'ee. In Northants, for | J 

 instance, there is scarcely any tithe. Are wages higher in this j ' 

 county or rents lower? Do farmers who rent tithe-free farms i 

 pay more to their labourers than their neighbours who occupy 

 land subject to tithe? Does a yeoman, farming his own laud 

 tithe-free, give higher wages than those who pay both tithe and 

 rent? Neither do tithes raise rents. A B rents a farm of 100 

 acres at 11. an acre. It makes no difference to him whether, if 

 his land is tithe-free, he pays the whole rent to the sqnire, or, if 

 it is subject to tithe, 18s. to the sqnire and 2s. to the parson for 

 every acre in his holding. The farmer's position is exactly that 

 of a London householder, who, in addition to his rent to the 

 lessor, pays a ground-rent to the ground landlord. A house islet 



