40 



principal. The landowner will pay lOOL a year interest instead of 

 lOOZ. a year rent-charge, for a period not exceeding fifty years, after 

 ■which time there will be nothing to pay. He will derive an 

 immediate benefit from the fact that, in lieu of a fluctuating rent- 

 charge, he will have a fixed and terminable one. He ■will have 

 acquired the exchange upon a 5 per cent, calculation, ■whereas, 

 eventually, it ■will become to him a 3 per cent, property. That will 

 be accomplished in this way. In any estimate of the salable value 

 of his land the amount of net rent is that which is capitalised. A 

 farm worth, say, GOOZ. a year, but subject to 1001. a year tithe rent- 

 charge, is only of the value of 500Z. a year net. This at thirty years' 

 purchase is lo,OOOZ. When the tithe rent-charge is removed the net 

 value will be 6001. a year, and the capital value 18,000Z. The 

 increase in value being 3,000/., the price which it is proposed to 

 charge for this increase is 2,000L There is, therefore, a gain to the 

 landowner of 1,000Z. in capital value without any payment for it. 

 That is not the only gain which the landowner ■will make. His land 

 will daily become more valuable as time passes by. The value of 

 the land will continue to increase in anticipation of its being freed 

 from the rent-charge, and after a few years have passed away that 

 increase will become very material." 



If the tithe rent-charge is to bo redeemed, the financial 

 arrangements of Mr. Eyde's scheme appear to be admirably 

 ■R'orked out. By co-operation between the Government and the 

 lando'svner it is plain that the titheowner's interests could be 

 equitably adjusted, the land relieved from the burden of the 

 rent-charge, a vexed question permanently solved, and a great 

 increase made to the agricultural capital of the country by the 

 compulsory thrift ■whicb the scheme entails. It may be asked, 

 Why distingnisb between parochial and impropriated tithes? 

 Why pay for the former twenty-eight and a half years' 

 purchase and for the latter only twenty years' purchase ? The 

 reasons are sufficiently obvious. The clergy as a body earn 

 their tithes, except in the opinion of those who are opposed to 

 the maintenance of any religion whatever. Again, the tithe 

 rent-charge represents gifts to the parochial clergy or to 

 monastic and conventual establishments ; it represents an 

 endowment for spiritual ministrations as well as an endowment 

 for what may be called State purposes of education, maintenance 

 of paupers, &c. The first endowment was given to the parish 

 priest, the second to the monk and nun. Parochial tithes were 

 given to the parish clergy to perform divine service, to practise 

 hospitality, to instruct the people in religion by precept and 

 example. They were " never given to the poor, uncouth, 

 unlearned parish priest to vie with the regular clergy in the 

 maintenance of schools, workhouses, asylums, penitentiaries. 

 On the other hand, it is incontrovertible that monastic endow- 

 ments, now partially represented by tithe rent-charge in the 

 hands of impropriators, were partly bestowed for these objects. 

 In the case of the parochial clergy the will of the " pious 



