with favour or disfavour, it has this cardinal principle, which I wish to enforce, that ordinary tithe shall be kept quite distinct from extraordinary, and that the former shall not be made to bear the burden of the latter. As to redemption, I am afraid that at best it would be a slow process unless the number of years purchase were fixed so low as to be practically a confiscation of the tithe-owner's property; and that I should be sorry to see. Mr. Inderwick's Bill, which is more moderate than many, proposes to take the value of £100 at £75 as a basis for the redemption of the extraordinary tithe. As to payment by the landlord, I consider this would be unfair. It is purely a tenant's question. He grows the crop, and does so with the knowledge that he will have to pay an extra charge. The landlord is already put to the expense of building oast houses and rendering himself liable to the valuation for hop-poles, &c., which is a very heavy one. We should all probably agree that to leave the question where it is would not be satisfactory. We want to lift it out of the domain of passion and party politics; to recognize the grievance, if there is one, and to devise a settlement on fair and equitable terms. I have suggested one, liable, I have no doubt, to criticism and open to objections which I may have overlooked. I only beg those who follow me to criticize it as an honest, and, I hope, fair attempt to deal with this difficult question, and would say,
| "Si quid novisti rectius istis Candidus imperti, si non, his utere mecum." |
Printed at the Office of the Rochester Church Chronicle,
225, Great Dover Street, Borough, S.E.
