resorted to the supposed imperfection of the machinery should have been no obstruction in the path of justice. A brother clergyman, whom I have already alluded to, touching this point, writes thus to me-"The principal small tithes are wool and agistment, and the value of so many bushels of wheat, barley, and oats, can afford no approximation even to the value of such small tithes as these, and scarcely of any other. If the Corn Laws be done away with, the effect will be the immediate diminution of, at the least, one-third of the value of all livings, as measured by the scale in the Act, whether rectories or vicarages. And in the case of corn tithes this may be no injustice. But while the removal of the Corn Laws would much augment both the quantity and price of both wool and agistment, the tithe-rent in lieu of them would be greatly diminished instead of increased, and the church robbed without a shadow of compensation. Of the value of vicarial tithes, wool ought certainly to have been the chief measure; and means might easily have been devised of ascertaining its average price. This appears to me the strongest of all the objections to the Act."

I think the observation of some, of, perhaps, considerable weight; and I make no doubt that almost every clergyman, seriously considering this point, would come to a somewhat similar conclusion. As the matter now stands, we have as imperfect and unfair a standard as possible for all tithes but corn tithes, and even for them, a standard far below the both past and present real, current value, year by year.*

* Mr. Powell observes, "The course of cultivation is very much in favour of the increasing value of vicarages. The introduction of the turnip, the potatoe, and other vegetable roots, add to the revenues of the vicar, though it be at the expence of the rector; and there is a reasonable ground for

CLAUSE LVIII.

Rent-charge may be specially apportioned on particular Lands at request of any Land-owner.-How Expenses to be paid. No Close to be charged, unless three times the value of the Rent-charge.

This clause is, I think, a dangerous one for the rights of the Establishment, as it does much to cut off the hope of ever returning to the old system, which we are impiously, weakly, and without a staid consideration abandoning. I should advise the real friends to the church among these commissioners, (for she still has among them her friends) to be cautious how they countenance or facilitate the progress of any such arrangements as go to the making so large a portion of the present tithable lands in the kingdom so entirely free of this just and ancient burthen. And certainly, the clergy ought to be very careful how they lend their hand to this rending asunder of what may be called, without any infringement of holy truth, "God's heritage."

Let us here be permitted to ask a few plain questions. Suppose this rent-charge "specially apportioned on particular lands, at the request of any land-owner," so that these lands are, according to the conditions, "three times of the value of the rent-charge." Here then we have, at any rate, considerably narrowed our security. Before, the whole of the estate answered for the payment; now, it is laid upon, we will say, one-third of it. Before, all the land was in a state of a money-payment in

supposing that a change of cultivation is still progressing throughout the country, which will continue to improve the value of vicarial tithe." All this, however, will be lost to the poorer benefices, by the operation of the Act. All will be lost that ought to have been sacredly preserved.

lieu of its tithe; now, two-thirds of the land is sold, and is become entirely tithe-free-free of the actual tithe-free of any money-payment in lieu of that actual tithe.

Suppose, further, that any natural accident should diminish or destroy any part of this remaining one-third of the estate, now alone left answerable for the rent-charge. Suppose it to lie near the edge of the sea, and, in part, to cave in; or to be attacked by grub, or blight; or by continued bad husbandry to be rendered every year less and less valuable, less and less available; or, from its peculiar situation, to be subject to land springs, or inundations, so that a large portion of it become useless.

Now these are all possible cases; and where, I ask, in any of these cases, is the incumbent to look for his rent-charge? We should have supposed, the eternal rule of justice prevailing, upon the great remaining part of the estate. But that is gone into the possession of another, who, we may be assured, will not make himself responsible for the payment; for he bought and paid for the land as entirely free of tithe, and free of tithe he will keep it. A note, however, to the 85th clause, in part, relieves us from enquiry. "In these cases, (says the Solicitor to the Bill) where the land is lost, the rent-charge is lost too." But the rent-charge was at first spread over the whole estate, before it was "specially appointed on these particular lands."

And where is our remedy for the letting down of this third part of the estate; the so much letting it down, that though, at first, of the specified value, "three times the value of the rent-charge," it is now become considerably under that amount. May not continued ill husbandry, or peculiarities of the soil, render it in time insufficient for the required payment? For these, and reasons of this nature, I should say, agree not to any "special apportion

ments." It can only make things worse, so far as our church revenues are concerned.

Now this is much the same mode of manoeuvreing with what (without any sufficient authority) has been done in various parts of the kingdom (especially in marshes edging on the sea) with modus payments. These payments they have thrown upon a small part of the marshes, and thus made the remainder of the level tithe-free.-And so they have disposed of it by sale, and so it has been re-disposed of. But had these lands been subject to the full tithe, they could clearly not have done this. Yet these lands were subject to the full tithe, when these moduses originated. The three half pence, the twopence, the twopence halfpenny per acre, was all they were then fairly worth. It was neglect not to have raised them with rising times, but, at all events, modus lands were (and therefore are) lands under smaller tithe payments, and could not, of course, have those payments laid on a part of them instead of the whole.

There is another objection to this unfriendly clause. Suppose this "Act for the Commutation of Tithes" should be repealed, before it has been in operation many years, an event not, I hope, impossible or even improbable. Will it not, I ask, under the influence of this clause, become far more difficult to measure back our steps? Will the land-owners be very willing for their tithe-free farms again to come under the yoke, light and easy as it was, forgetting through what portentous favour they ever managed to escape from it? I am afraid this clause, if it can be largely acted upon, will do us as much harm as almost any in the Bill; but I hope we shall consider well to what it points, and avoid the danger.

In their Act to amend this Act-for they are evermore obliged to botch up, and do and undo, as

they go along-there is what is called "an enlargement of the power of special appointment" here given, but I do not think that it much betters matters. Mr. White observes, "This provision is calculated to meet many difficulties which will arise, when the tithes of a parish are payable to different tithe-owners, and the identity of the lands, out of which the tithe of each owner issues, cannot be accurately established." I should say that, in a majority of cases, few or no difficulties would occur. It is not necessary, therefore, to invite the chance of fraud or abuse by this emendation. When the commissioners and land-owners on the one side, and the unpracticed, unsuspecting clergyman on the other, are left to determine "that the several rent-charges which shall be made payable in lieu of tithes to each of the titheowners respectively, shall be fixed and apportioned upon such particular lands as to them shall seem convenient," &c., when it is added, "and every agreement or determination to that effect, when confirmed by the tithe commissioners, shall be binding upon and conclusive against all persons and bodies politic, notwithstanding any doubt as to the identity of the lands out of which the tithes originally issued in lieu whereof such distinct rent-charges are made payable," is not this something like intimating that that which is right may be made wrong, and for ever shall so continue?

I should further instance in this section another proof how greatly, how entirely the Commutation Act favours the land-owner. It does indeed seem to bestow this favour with a most unsparing hand. "Rent-charge may be specially apportioned, on particular lands, at request of any land-owner." But they well knew that a small land-owner could afford to part with none of his little patrimony; could not afford the expence of such special apportionment. Nor are these small land-owners, to