15 



in 1836, if tail corn had been included in the estimate, the tithe- 

 payer -would have suffered, because the fixed quantity which the 

 mouey would have purchased would have been increased. A 

 more valid objection seems to be that oats and barley, from 

 their cheaper prices and larger quantities, have exercised an 

 undue preponderance in the calculation of the averages. While 

 wheat fell enormously, barley and oats till recently made their 

 old prices, and thus negatived the effect upon the averages of 

 the fall in wheat. If railway rates and other charges for the 

 carriage of corn swell the prices on which the averages are 

 calculated, a case is established for a change in the method of 

 ascertaining the amount of the tithe rent-charge. This is an 

 innovation which the Act of 183G did not contemplate. But, 

 subject to this possible exception, for half a century sales have 

 been determined, contracts entered into, bargains struck, valua- 

 tions made, on the system established by the Tithe Commuta- 

 tion Act. Tenant farmers are not really concerned in the 

 adjustment of the tithe rent-charge, and, as between tithe- 

 owners and landowners, who are the only jjersons concerned, 

 tlie landowners have enjoyed the best of the bargain. 



As between landowners and titheowners it must be remembered 

 tliat since 1836 rents have nearly doubled ; before the Com- 

 mutation Act a tenth of this increment would have gone to the 

 titheowner. Sir James Caird clearly shows how the Act has 

 operated to the detriment of titheowners. The effect of the 

 Act was to pi'event the clergy progressing in material resources 

 in proportion to the advance of land improvement. Whether or 

 not this was the intention of the Legislature, the result cannot 

 be considered unfair since titheowners do not in any way 

 conti'ibute to agricultural progress. Since 1836 — • 



" The land rental of England has risen 50 per cent., and all that 

 portion of the inci'ease which previous to 183G would have gone to 

 the Church has gone to the landowners. ... A tenth of that 

 would not, however, by any means adequately represent the loss to 

 the Church and the gain to the landowners ; for the tithe in kind 

 was the tenth of the gross produce which was equal to much more 

 than a tenth of the rent of arable land. In 1836 the money value of 

 tlie tithe, as compared with the land rental, was as 4 millions to 33. 

 In 1876 the tithe was still 4 millions, but the land rental had risen 

 to 50. If the old principle of participation had continued, the annual 

 income of the Church would have been 2 millions greater than it 

 is."— (The Landed Interest, p. 133, Fourth Edition, 1880.) 



In another respect Sir James Caird shows that landlords have 

 prolited at the expense of the Church. Near large towns land 

 has increased in value 100 per cent. : — 



" It was never contemplated," writes Sir James, " that the land- 

 owners should thus obtain the whole growing value of the laud 

 without leaving any part of it for the support of religion " (p. 135). 



The alliance of landowners with tenants in the anti-tithe 



