Let us take, for example, the enormous house properties in London held by three dukes, viz., Westminster, Portland, and Bedford. They pay but a small amount of rent-charge compared with their rentals.
When the Commutation Act was passed, there was much boasting by the supporters of the Church as to the humility of the clergy who had not petitioned Parliament, or held any meetings to protest against the Bill while passing through Parliament. There was good reason for such silent acquiescence. The Church made a good bargain under the circumstances. The expenses of collecting the tithes in kind sometimes reached 50 per cent, of the gross value. The tithe-owner is now relieved of all this expense and trouble, and the Act has given him a firm security.
Sir James Caird, in his book, entitled, “Landed Interest,” says, “Since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, in 1836 to 1876, the rent of tithable land increased from thirty-three millions a year to fifty millions a year. The tithe-rent charge in 1836 was four millions, and is about the same still.” He then asserts that the Church has lost two millions a year by the Act. In 1890, there is a considerable reduction in the rentals throughout the country, owing to agricultural depression. The repeal of the Corn Laws has led to the introduction of such large quantities of wheat from foreign countries, that our farmers, with their heavy rents, rates, taxes, and tithe-rent charges, are unable to compete with foreign producers. It is calculated that what is produced in England and Wales for the maintenance of the population, would only suffice for three months out of the twelve, and that nine months’ provisions are imported from foreign countries and from Ireland and Scotland. It is therefore doubtful that if the Commutation Act were repealed, whether the tithe-owners would receive more from tithes in kind than the gross rent-charge of four millions per annum. But it would be utterly unreasonable, and practically impossible now, to repeal this Act, as Church defenders want, and have a re-valuation; and even some go so far as to assert that the tithe in kind should again be collected. Now, one statement is sufficient to overthrow these assertions. The main object of the Commutation Act of 1836 was to prevent tithe-owners from receiving an increased quantity of tithes from increased agricultural improvements. So long as this system continued, landlords and tenants were always unwilling to sink capital in agricultural improvements, because a large part of the profits would be claimed by the tithe-owners who had not expended a shilling to realize these profits. But all this was changed by the Commutation Act; and, consequently, both landlords and tenants have expended, since 1836, enormous sums of money in improvements. Therefore, if there were now a re-valuation, it would be estimated upon present improvements, which it was the main object of the Commutation Act to prevent. And the re-valuation would be a gross injustice on those who sank their money in improvements. On the other hand, I must admit, in justice to the tithe-owners, that the repeal of the Corn Laws had never been anticipated when the Act of 1836 was passed, and it is an unquestionable fact that the repeal of these laws has brought about the present diminution of rent-charges, which are based upon the prices of three cereals, the most important being wheat, which has been and will be the most important and extensive article of importation from foreign countries, and its growing diminution of cultivation in England and Wales. The tithe, or tithe-rent charge being national property, and no compensation being made when the Corn-Laws were repealed, which obviously would affect, in course of time, the prices of the cereals in England, it seems to me that an act of injustice to this class of property was perpetrated when the Corn-Laws were repealed, and when no counterbalancing compensation was given, or provision made in the Act to meet any future diminution of this property below par, which diminution may be traced to the operations of this Act. This national property should be carefully safeguarded, especially against landlords, who, in the majority, are the law-makers.
Redemption of Tithe-Rent Charge.
The force of this observation is keenly felt when the property is put up for sale. It will be difficult to frame a Redemption Act, for one party will calculate the price at par value; another party, at the current annual value, which is now so much below par. And it is uncertain when the upward turn in the average annual value will occur, and when it does occur, it will be very small and slow. This is what makes the redemption question so difficult to deal with. In the Tithe Act of 1891, the provision for redeeming the tithe-rent charge is omitted and postponed. In framing a Redemption Bill, everything will turn on the meaning attached to the word value. Two values will be the salient points for discussion: (1) Present market value of the tithe-rent charge; and (2) a fair value. The most opposite opinions will be found to prevail on these two vital points. Let us take £100 of the “commuted value,” and put it in the market for sale. The present value (1891) of the £100 is £73 3s. 3¾d. Present purchaser will reason thus: Depreciation, £24; rates and other charges, £20 = £100 - 44 = £56. Having arrived at this amount, the next important question the purchaser will ask himself, How many years’ purchase shall I give? Some will say twenty, but a reasonable man will say twenty-five, and will offer 56 × 25 = £1,400 for the £100 of the “commuted value.” Again, there is a powerful body, and among them the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would probably not sell at £1,400. They would start from par value and only allow a deduction for rates and other charges, i.e., £ 100 - 20 = £80, and would not sell for less than twenty-five years’ purchase on this value, i.e., £80 x 25 = £2,000. These are the salient facts with which the framers of any Redemption Bill will have to deal. There may be a modus vivendi arrived at by “splitting the difference,” and selling £100 say for £1,800, and other amounts in the same proportion. The Bill will never pass except both parties will agree to a modus vivendi, as above sketched out. But in my opinion, the price should not be less than £2,000.
The following statement is taken from the Tithe Commissioners’ Report, dated 4th July, 1887.
| £ | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Clerical Appropriators | 681,695 |
| 2. | Parochial Incumbents | 2,415,040 |
| 3. | Lay Impropriators | 766,334 |
| 4. | Schools, Colleges, etc | 196,055 |
| £4,059,124 |
The recipients of (1) and (4) are stated in the Appendix.
In 1891, the depreciation is £967,419, and the total gross value is £3,061,705. Assuming £2,000 to be the price by Act of Parliament of £100 commuted value; the Government would advance to the landowners £58,837,965 at £4 per cent., and would hand over stock at £2¾ per cent. to this amount to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in trust for the parochial incumbents and clerical appropriators. They would pay the dividends, amounting to £1,705,200 per annum, to the incumbents, etc., just as they do the dividends on other properties vested in them.