456 History of the English Landed Interest. 



also raised the more mundane objection that the measure 

 mulcted them of a considerable portion of their profits by 

 leaving the producer onl}' liable for the money value of one- 

 tenth of his grain instead of as formerly for predial, mixed, 

 and personal tithes — and indeed this sacrifice, amounting to 

 30 per cent of their original dues, was not, as it was intended 

 to be, compensated for by entire emancipation from future 

 unpleasantnesses over the collection of what remained. Sec- 

 tion 80 of the Act of 1836 makes the landlord responsible for 

 the debt, but he managed to contract himself out of it until 

 the Act of 1891 tied him down more securely to this under- 

 taking. The tithe-payer, as well as the tithe-owner, had his 

 grievances over Lord John Russell's arrangement. The far- 

 mers complained that only the superior qualities of grain 

 found their way into the scheduled markets, that when sold 

 there the prices included the profits of the middleman, so that 

 the averages derived from such a source were greatly in excess 

 of the profits obtainable by the producer had his entire crop 

 of " tail " and damaged grain been included in the valuation. 

 Nor could they see the fairness of a system that placed on an 

 equal footing the cultivators of rich and barren soils, as well 

 as the grazier and the corn husbandman. 



Most of these grievances are purely imaginary ; for, as we 

 have shown, the productive powers of each farm were ascer- 

 tained at the time of the passing of the Act, and the dislike 

 of grass-land farmers to becoming the objects of a payment 

 entirely based on grain averages has been subsequently de- 

 monstrated to be more suitable to a tithe-owner than a tithe- 

 payer. In fact Mr. J. G. Hubbard a few years ago took con- 

 siderable pains to examine the effects of substituting a meat 

 basis for one of corn, and made out a table giving the weights 

 of beef and mutton worlh £100 upon the prices of 1829-35 for 

 the fifty-one years ending 1885 ; from which he proves that 

 the meat basis would have averaged from £10 to £12 higher 

 than the grain basis for the same period. 



The most plausible objection advanced by the farmer was 

 the first one, and this the Board of Trade took in hand. After 

 careful consideration, however, it refused to recommend any 



