We have referred in another column to the curious views
on the Tithe question which are now being promulgated by the malcontents with the Government Bill. Take as an illustra- tion the letter from Foots Cray, Kent, signed " Charles E. Shea," in last Wednesday's Times. Mr. Shea writes :—" Be it remembered that the claim of to-day is not to take from the Church any right or benefit consciously accorded by the Act of 1836. Accident, arising from the unforeseen, has alone served to place the tithe-owner in a position of advantage, the attempt to retain the benefit of which is both unrighteous and, as events will surely show, unwise." So far as this remark applies to land which has been, or is on the point of being, thrown out of cultivation, we have admitted its justice. But Mr. Shea appears to apply it to all cases in which the tithe has grown to be a much larger proportion of the produce of the land than it used to be. Well, if the change had been, as in former times it has often been, and in the neighbourhood of towns still is, in the other direction, would Mr. Shea have complained that the State did not get the advantage of that increase in the value of land after tithe had been commuted ? And if not, what right has he to com- plain that the property which pays the tithe feels the dis- advantage of the commutation ? The commutation was more or less of a speculation ; and those who got the advantage of it when it proved advantageous, should bear the disadvantage of it when it proves disadvantageous.
Previous page
