34 



gnsts of the popularis aura, we may contemplate as certain the 

 accumulation of a mass of useless Acts, no sooner framed than 

 they are amended, modified, or repealed, which will involve the 

 whole question in an intricate knot that only the knife can 

 disentangle. In whose hand is that weapon likely to be placed? 

 Will passion or reason guide the stroke? If, on the other hand, 

 the policy is settled, changes may be made gradually and with 

 mature consideration. Nor will the Church or the country 

 really suffer from delay. Less loss will be inflicted by the 

 maintenance, in all its details, of the existing system than 

 would inevitably result from hasty, ill-considered legislation. 

 Some immediate relief may be administered to distress ; many 

 of the agricultural and clerical objections to tithe rent-charges 

 or glebe lands as they exist are capable of removal, or, at least, 

 of large diminution. 



In this letter I propose to deal with tithe rent-charges, and 

 in my next, and last, with glebe lands. In each of them I shall 

 offer some suggestions on the two questions which arise on 

 both divisions of the subject — (a) What immediate changes 

 are desirable or practicable? (b) What ought to be the ultimate 

 goal towards which legislation should be directed ? 



As I previously pointed out, landowners have profited largely 

 at the expense of titheowners. They have derived considerable 

 benefit both directly and indirectly from the Tithe Commutation 

 Act of 1836. Every invention which increases or cheapens 

 production diminishes the amount of the charge ; they are able 

 to develop to the full the resources of the soil without con- 

 sidering the increased tax of the tithe ; they have gained, and 

 rightly gained, the whole increment which has within the last 

 half-century resulted from agricultural progress. In all these 

 i-espects, as well as many others, the Tithe Act has worked 

 fairly and has promoted agriculture. But when the tithe- 

 owner gave up his claim to share in the increased profits 

 of the land what was his quid pro quo ? He took a 

 fixed rent-charge instead of a tenth of the produce, 

 on the understanding that he would be relieved from the odium 

 and unpopularity which his existing relations with the occupiers 

 necessarily produced. The contract has been performed on the 

 one side, for the landowner has been enriched at the expense of 

 the titheowner; it has not been performed on the other, for the 

 titheowner is still placed in the unpleasant relation towards the 

 occupier from which the Legislature intended that he should be 

 relieved. How has this one-sided result been produced? By 

 an arrangement between the landowner and the occupier, 

 entered into for their mutual advantage without the consent of 

 the titheowner, often against his will, and always against his 

 interest. Yet this arrangement between landlord and tenant 



