THE law of Tithes is a consideration of mixed interest to the Church; for though it proves the principal source of its revenue, it frequently originates disputes, which separate the pastor from his flock. But whilst we thus express our opinion, it is very far from our design to convey reflection. All we intend is a statement of the fact, and all we require is its admission. For it is not true, as some assert, that the clergy are more rigid than others in exacting their dues. When statutes are imposed for the benefit of society, it is unjust to oppose their application; nevertheless we should form an erroneous estimate of human nature, were we to expect a tacit acquiescence in arrangements which bear upon individual feeling and hence perhaps it is, and not from any exorbitant demands of the clergy, that the tithing system becomes so unpopular. Moreover, men, with interests diametrically opposed, are, generally speaking, but little competent to reason about rights; for here the medium of prejudice is interposed to blind the perception; and, consequently, though they start with the fairest ideas of reciprocity, they imperceptibly imbibe opinions favourable to themselves, and so overlook the equity of the question before them. This observation is not inapplicable to tithes. The occupier of an estate is induced to expend a sum of money upon its improvement. As his crops increase, the demands of the tithe-owner advance; and this without incurring risk or expense. Yet are these demands founded on justice, for by common right he is entitled to a tenth of the produce of the soil. But although the legality of the right cannot be disputed, and although there has been a previous knowledge of its existence, few minds are so regulated as to submit to it without complaint. The farmer is apt to dislike the tithing system because he considers it a clog to industry and exertion; and, in many instances, extends his dislike to the person who avails himself of it.

Another source of discontent is the principle by which, in many cases, the right of tithe is established. A person

supposes his lands exonerated from' tithes, because for many generations, perhaps centuries, none have been demanded, but in lieu thereof he has made some small pecuniary compensation. But the owner of the tithes, availing himself of that maxim in law which admits not the lapse of Church property, establishes the rankness of the modus; and that, perhaps, not only in the absence of all documentary proof, but by a rule of evidence, deduced from the improbability of a fact, and not a principle of law. But here, as in the case before mentioned, there is nothing unjust, because there is nothing illegal. It is also evident there has been a long and favourable term to the landholder, for the same right which is now established did exist at every previous interval of time. Nevertheless, were we to expect a man under such circumstances to suffer no disappointment or regret, we should only decide as to his duty without participating in his feelings.

Hitherto we have adduced instances where rights are readily defined: but it is to be conceived, that, in a system which existed at least as early as the year 786, and which has, like other systems, during the lapse of ages, been subject to change and innovation, questions of great difficulty must now and then occur. The avarice of ecclesiastics has sometimes obliterated privileges which had been otherwise acknowledged. "As the overflowing of waters," says Sir Edward Coke, "doth many times make the river to lose its proper channel, so, in times past, ecclesiastical persons, seeking to extend their liberties beyond their true bounds, either lost or enjoyed not those which of right belonged to them." Revolutions in the government and the dissolution of monasteries have alike contributed towards the destruction of records; and hence in suits respecting tithes, courts of equity have been compelled to admit as evidence what would otherwise have been rejected. It is scarcely to be wondered that the most arbitrary decisions have been made. In one court we have judgments almost exclusively in favour of the Church,

whilst in another they are as decidedly against it.

It is not, therefore, a matter of surprise, that a system, fraught with disputes, and so productive of litigation, should have attracted the attention of the legislature; and, accordingly, a Bill is now before the House of Commons, for the purpose of effecting a general commutation of tithes. The provisions of the Bill, even were it to pass into a law, being entirely optional, we do not imagine, so long as questions of tithe remain, can be very extensive in their operation; for it is unreasonable to suppose that the clergy would voluntarily relinquish the privilege, "Nullum tempus occurrit ecclesiæ," or that the justice of a British senate would without an equivalent remove it and it is well known, that whenever a commutation takes place by Act of Parliament, this privilege no longer exists. Considering the primary intention of a Christian church to be of a nature strictly spiritual, and knowing from experience that her spiritual welfare is retarded when differences arise no matter how between the minister and his people, we profess ourselves favourable to a commutation when that can be made upon fair and equitable principles; but at the same time we candidly confess, that the Bill now before us seems to offer no adequate compensation for that it designs to take away. It scarcely professes more than to generalize the old system of a corn-rent. Indeed, there is so little variation that we do not think it necessary to trouble our readers with an extract. The only variations we perceive are for the worse, inasmuch as they render the operation of the law more complex and expensive.

We shall now state our objections to corn-rents. A corn-rent upon a long average is invariably against the tithe owner, because whilst the quality of his tithe fluctuates, the quantity remains the same; or, in other words, the renewal of the rent is governed by the price of grain, and is not dependent on that conjointly with the value of the soil, as was the case when first established. We will exemplify our case by a reference to one in Scotland. About the year 1633 a commission was issued to value the tithes; when a fifth

VOL. X. NO. IV.

part of the rent was taken in lieu of them. The valuation was made sometimes in money, sometimes in grain, and oftentimes in both. Where the value was in money the charge has now become a trifling consideration; and even where it was taken in grain, it bears but a very small proportion to what it would have been were the value at this day to be taken. Where the proprietors did not avail themselves of the commission, and the valuation has been taken in later times, the charge is of course much greater. Such has been found to be the effect of this corn-rent where it has had time to operate, and therefore we do not consider it an equitable commutation, excepting where a fresh valuation of the tithe shall be made when the new average is struck. It is clear if land deteriorate in price, the conclusion to be drawn is directly contrary to the one we have made: but the only inference as to the future is by a reference to past, and by this we know that although there have been periods when land has suffered a temporary diminution in value, yet upon the whole it has risen inversely as the depreciation of money; and that as the one has progressively fallen, so the other has uniformly risen. There is also a serious inconvenience in the way by which an average in England is struck. A corn-rent is generally renewable every ten or fifteen years. Now we will suppose a case of no very rare occurrence, viz. that during one of these intervals, when corn is low, an incumbent receives a rent settled upon a high average. It is then evident, that if the price of grain be at all in proportion to that of the other necessaries of life, a larger income is obtained when it is least required. Take the converse hypothesis, and a less income is obtained when a greater is required. Nor is the incumbent alone subject to these alterations, for in the one case the farmer would have to meet a heavier charge with less means, and in the other a lighter charge with ampler means.

But, secondly, we object that the price of grain is not a general criterion of the value of other titheable produce. We wish to speak correctly when we state our belief, that a living in the North of England has acquired the

K K

some

right of tithe of lead. How then could the price of corn be any rule in such a case? This is, perhaps, a solitary instance where the rector enjoys a tithe which is neither predial, mixed or personal, and therefore can have little weight against the general principle of Mr. Greene's bill; but we know that there are other crops, such as hops and millet, which in districts are extensively cultivated, with which the price of wheat or other grain has no connexion. Again, the policy of this country seems to approximate towards a free trade. As to what may be the effect produced, very different opinions are entertained. But should the opening of the ports to foreign grain tend greatly to depress its value, unless every other article of life fall in the same proportion, the tithe owner and the proprietor of the soil may stand in very different situations. Action has its re-action; consequently, if an estate will not pay for the cultivation of wheat, some other crop may be substituted to remunerate the grower; and, in an enterprising nation like this, it is impossible to contemplate the changes in agriculture. For the justice of this observation let us appeal to the present state of many vicarages, the funds of which have risen from insignificance from the introduction of turnips and potatoes. But of such advantages the incumbent who has commuted his tithe cannot avail himself, and may thus be deprived of a provision equal to the support of his station.

Infinitely preferable to the cornrent of England is the Scottish regulation. We have already shewn how the tithes are assessed; but the clergy, in drawing their stipends from the proprietors in the parish, do not receive them in corn, but, as with us, in money. They possess, however, this advantage over us, that their average is struck once a year, generally about the end of February. This is done by the sheriff of the county, who calls together a number of respectable individuals who have raised and sold grain, and upon their evidence decides the average. This they call the Fiars of the county. But even this system operates unequally: for in the year 1812, the stipends were nearly double

to what they have subsequently been; nor is it without its defects. We know not whether an occupier being also a proprietor is capable of giving evidence: if he be, he is an interested individual. But the main objection is this, that it does not, any more than our own, sever the temporalities of the Church from those of the laity, and however a commutation is made, this is the first consideration: for it is absolutely certain, that so long as payments are made to the clergy, otherwise than as between landlord and tenant, there will be always some persons dissatisfied. It is also quite a mistake to suppose that corn-rents have removed the ground of litigation; for in the county of Huntingdon, where the corn-rent has been but little resorted to, there have been two suits respecting the average. The judgment upon one of them seemed to bear very hard upon the incumbent. At the expiration of one and twenty years after the inclosure, he applied for a new average. The proprietor of the land contested the point on the principle that the twenty-one years were to be computed not from the passing of the bill for inclosure, but from the date of signing the award. The decision was in his favour, and it had the effect of striking off some years when corn had an high average, and introducing others which yielded a low one. The other instance was where the rector had omitted to renew his rent for two years after the period prescribed by his act had elapsed; and this was done merely to give his parishioners the benefit of throwing out the two first years when corn had been unusually dear, and of course the average very high. He was opposed on two points: first, that as he had not renewed his rent at the stipulated period, he was not entitled to renew at all;

For what we have stated relative to the provision for the Scotch Church, we are indebted to the Rev. D. Wilkie, the worthy minister of Gifford; who, in conjunction with his patron, the Marquis of Tweeddale, has shewn what can be done towards ameliorating the moral condition of a people when the chief personage in a parish is united with its clergyman for that purpose.