IG 



a<?itation s, in my opinion, short-sighted, if it is not actually 

 dishonest. Landowners bought their land at a less price because 

 it was subject to tithe; they never purchased or acquired the 

 rent-charge ; it can be no grievance for them to pay what never 

 belonged to them ; it is no hardship not to receive interest on 

 capital -which they have not invested. Their successors inherit 

 •what their. predecessors bought, neither more nor less ; they are 

 in exactly the same position with respect to the charge, neither 

 better nor worse. The alliance is foolish, because the confisca- 

 tion of tithe will necessarily shake the security of every form of 

 property. It may be true that tithes are sacred to purposes, 

 while private property is sacred to persons; but the various 

 forms of property are so inextricably connected that a blow 

 which is struck at one inevitably wounds the whole. The 

 security of all property would be endangered if a form of pro- 

 perty, which is the oldest in the country, were diverted from 

 objects which are ex hypothesi useful and beneficial to purposes 

 of a different if not antagonistic nature. The alliance 

 is foolish for two other reasons. If "abolition" meant 

 that for the future no one should pay tithes, landlords 

 would receive a present of the amount. The nation might gain 

 indirectly by the unrestricted ownership of the land. But it is 

 absolutely inconceivable that in the latter end of the nineteenth 

 century a proposal would be made to enrich landlords with a 

 pecuniary benefit of so large an amount. Whatever is done 

 with tithes they will not be in this sense abolished. They will 

 be exacted by Church Property Commissioners instead of 

 parsons ; the new collectors will not be hindered by any conflict 

 of duties in their appeal to the law ; no grace will be allowed ; 

 and every facility will be given to Government officials to 

 enforce payment. Landlords assuredly will be no gainers if the 

 right to tithes is transferred from the clergy to an all-powerful 

 machine which knows no mercy and allows no plea for delay. 

 Again, if the clerical tithe rent-charge is transferred to secular 

 uses, what argument can be pleaded for the retention of lay 

 impropriations? Tithes in the hands of laymen are the proceeds 

 of the dissolution of the monasteries, of endowments which 

 enabled monastic establishments to be schools, penitentiaries, 

 asylums, and poor-houses. There is no pretence for assorting 

 that the original purposes of the donors are fulfilled. The same 

 cannot be said of parochial endowments ; the country clergj'- 

 still perform the duties for the performance of which parochial 

 tithes were originally appropriated. No distinction can bo 

 drawn between tithes paid to the clergy and tithes paid to lay- 

 men, except that the former earn them, while the latter do not. 

 To most minds both forms of property are equally inviolable. 



