On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
consent of the bishop of the diocese . Of what avail is the permission so kindly given ? Is there a parish in the country , taking those first in which a composition is paid for tithes , where the clergyman , on the one hand , does not consider himself fully entitled to a greater sum , and where the parishioners , on the other hand , do not pay that sum with reluctance , and are not constantly seeking to reduce the amount ? But how will the bill avail , and what a cruel mockery will it seem , in those instances where the clergyman is at open war with his parishioners , taking his tithes in kind 5 and exacting to the uttermost farthing ? Where then are the elements of agreement ? Is it reasonable to expect the strife
to be amicably terminated with no umpire appointed to decide between the conflicting claims ? There maybe cases , but undoubtedly they are rare ones , where tithe-payers and tithe-receivers live together upon a friendly footing , with no jealousies or feelings of ill will on either side ; but in these instances * if such there be § the want of a commutation bill would be scarcely felt : and it will be looked upon as nearly valueless .
1 he first great error in Lord Althorp ' s plan regarded the appointment of valuators , the selection of wliom would have been made to rest almost exclusively with the clergy ; thus rendering the tithereceiver the judge in his own cause . This part of the bill there was reason to anticipate would have been altered in Committee . But the most objectionable feature was the clause which provided that the commutation should be governed , in the case of every farm , by an average of the amount of tithes paid during the last seven years . Against this clause , as might have been expected , numerous petitions have been pcured in , and the Noble Lord has met these petitions by rendering the bill wholly nugatory for any good purpose , and depriving the agricultural interest of all prospect of relief , at least during the present session .
The injustice of the proposition to fix the burden of tithes at an average of the amount paid during the last seven years may be seen at a glance . It would have given a high premium to those whose lands have been underworked or suffered to lie waste , while those who by skilful management , or by the application of capital have brought their lands into the highest possible state of cultivation would have been punished by a heavy fine , made perpetual ,
and which , under circumstances which might render the same degree of cultivation unprofitable , would become absolutely ruinous . The proper way would have been to have regulated the tithe , not by the accidental circumstance of the good or bad cultivation of the land during any number of years , but by the value of the land itself , and the amount of rental ; this would have simplified the whole measure , and , as may be seen by the petitions , would have given genernl satisfaction . Here I may take occasion to show how mistaken is the notion , that the burden of tithes falls exclusively upon landlords , and 19
Untitled Article
526 On Tiihes .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1833, page 526, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2620/page/14/
-