whole produce of his living. If he took a composition in lieu thereof, then, as in case of landlord and tenant, there was a mutual understanding with regard to rates, so that practically it fell equally on both; if the farmer paid them, he paid the clergyman a less composition, if the clergyman paid them, the farmer paid a larger composition. But supposing the rates to amount, as they have done in some cases, to twenty shillings in the pound, then the tenant would have to pay as rates an amount equal to the rent, which, if rent and profit are estimated equally, would be the sum total of his own share of the produce, leaving him without one shilling for maintenance. Would he think this right, even were he bound to it by lease? Would he

not apply for a reduction of rent? And would he not be thought to have a very harsh landlord were this reduction refused? A portion of the burden would undoubtedly be thrown upon the landlord, and the tenant proportionably relieved; so that his rental (rack-rent) is necessarily fluctuating. Now this is not the case with the clergyman; his is a fixed income. He is supposed to have the net produce of his living to apply to his own use; and if he be rated at twenty shillings in the pound, he has no landlord to fall back upon, to whom he pays a rent equal to the amount of his living, and whom he might ask to let him have back again a portion of that rent for a maintenance, his own being swallowed up by the rates; so that, to place them in a fair position, he should be accounted as occupying tithes to double the amount of his living; so that, if his rates are twenty shillings in the pound, and his living happens to be, for instance, £500 a year, he should be rated as a farmer would be, the produce of whose farm was a thousand, but who paid £500 a year rent to his landlord, and who, if his rates were to be twenty shillings in the pound, would pay £500 a year rates, and then immediately would apply to his landlord for a reduction of rent, and would, in equity, have the matter arranged, so that each should receive half of the remainder-i. e., £250 a year; and thus the farmer, who properly ought to receive £500 a year reward of his labour, would really be receiving only £250. So with the clergyman; he receives, on this supposition, £500 a year remuneration for his services as minister, and he pays £500 a year to his landlord, and his rates amount to twenty shillings in the pound, which entirely swallow up his £500 a year: why should he not then equally with the farmer be entitled to fall back upon his supposed landlord, and demand a reduction of his supposed rent, and so accommodate matters, that the remaining profits should be equally divided according to the law of equity, and thus he also receive his £250 a year?

The farmer, were there no rates, would receive £500, the landlord £500, the clergyman £500; the farmer, were the rates twenty shillings in the pound, would receive £250, the landlord £250, the clergyman £250. I have chosen the amount of rates at twenty shillings in the pound as the clearest examples, though the principle holds good in all cases.

Now I do really think that much of the plausibility of Mr. Shaw Lefevre's bill rests upon the erroneous hypothesis of a fixed rent being paid by the farmer, calculated before there was any possibility of a

20

r+40

rate ever being wanted. But we know that, practically, no rent is fixed, or at least agreed upon, without the rate being previously considered in the outgoings, and the profit to be divided not reckoned until that deduction is made; and even then, after this deduction, the rate is only apportioned to half of this remainder; so that, in point of equity, the rating of the tithes should be deducted before it is calcu lated upon the half of the remainder. This will be truly represented under the form, x = X- where a represents the amount of tithes, r the number of shillings in the pound at which the rate is made, and x the actual amount of rate paid. The result of this is, x = a ×; If r should 20, or the rate be twenty shillings in the pound, then , or the rate is one-third of the whole, which it would be in the case of a farm where the rate is made at twenty shillings on the half produce, and deducted before that half is calculated. It will be seen that those deductions for outgoings, which should be made from the gross amount of the clergyman's income, are not here specified; but respecting these there can scarcely be a question, and my method of calculation refers only to the net income of the clergyman after all necessary outgoings, save and except the rate, have been made; so that I believe I arrive at the same result with those who have maturely considered the subject. E. J.

=

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS.

SIR,-In consequence of the alteration in the law respecting parochial assessments, considerable excitement prevails throughout the whole country as to the mode in which different kinds of property are to be rated in the parish books, and what proportion their respective assess ments are to bear to each other. It certainly must be allowed by all parties, that every species of property ought to be rated according to its full relative value, so that if the poor-rates were to go on increasing, the holders of each might be ruined at the same time. And in order to have a uniform mode of rating different properties, and an equal assessment on all, and, at the same time, clearly to shew that such equal assessment is laid upon the full relative value of each property, the following plan seems to me worthy of consideration. We may fairly, I presume, hold it to be a fact, that the real value of any species of property is to be judged of by the sum it will fetch in the market, by the number of years' purchase at which it may be obtained. In the purchase of landed property, about 3 per cent. is considered a fair average return upon capital so invested. We may therefore suppose that the rack-rent of any estate represents 3 per cent. upon the purchase money, or gross value of it. In the purchase of a living, I believe, a return of about 10 per cent. on the purchase money, or gross value of it, is expected; if therefore the tithes of any parish have been commuted for £300 per annum, the purchase money, or gross value of such living, will be £3000. Now, 3 per cent. on £3000, or gross value of the tithes, will bear the same propor

tion to the real value of the living that the rack-rent of any estate does to the real value of such estate; consequently if, as is now contended, the rack-rent be the fair amount at which to rate such estate, such living of £300 per annum ought to be rated at £90 per annum. The same rule will apply to all property, houses, factories, &c. House property is worth, say fifteen years' purchase; consequently, a house which lets at £100 per annum will be worth £1500 as its full value. At 3 per cent. this house ought to be rated at £45 per annum, to bear an equal proportion of burden with landed property, if such landed property is to be rated at the rack-rent, or 3 per cent. on the value of the capital invested in it. I am not sufficiently acquainted with these matters to know whether I have taken the value of the different properties at a fair price, but the principle thus proposed seemed to afford a good test of real value; and the different average value of different kinds of property in the market is, of course, easily known. I remain, your obedient servant,

A LOVER OF Justice.

RATING OF TITHES.

SIR, If this letter be worth publishing, let it be so, as you like. I cannot perceive that the bill brought in by Mr. Charles Shaw Lefevre gives the protection to the tithe-owner that his brother, the poor law commissioner, suggests; but on the contrary, it makes no allowance to him, and yet exempts other profits.

Shenley.

T. N.

July 18th, 1838.

MY DEAR MR. NEWCOME,-I saw yesterday in the "Times" your letter, as to the hardship of tithes being rated to their value. As you may not have seen Mr. John Lefevre's opinion upon the existing Parochial Assessment Bill, I shall send it to you without further apology. Mr. J. Lefevre is, I believe, a poor-law commissioner. Lord John Russell's letter is in answer to an application from Lord Western, to know how tithes were to be rated. With compliments, yours truly, &c.

"Whitehall, June 14th, 1838. "MY DEAR LORD WESTERN,-I referred your letter of the 11th instant to Mr. John Lefevre, and enclose a memorandum which I have received from him, and which gives a clear exposition of the case. "Charles Lefevre has given notice of a declaratory bill upon the subject, which it is my intention to support. Very truly yours, "J. RUSSELL.."

"

Memorandum on Lord Western's Note of the 11th June, 1838.

"The doctrine to which Lord Western alludes has arisen from the combined operation of the Parochial Assessment Act, and of the decision in Rex v. Joddrell.

"That act, which prescribes that all hereditaments are to be assessed to the poor-rate at their respective value, contains this proviso:-'Nothing herein contained shall be construed to alter or affect the principles, or different relative liabilities (if any), according to which different kinds of hereditaments are now by law rateable.'

VOL. XIV.-Sept. 1838.

2 R

"

Whatever may be the legal effect of the words of this proviso, the intention of those who procured its insertion is understood to have been principally this-namely, that it should secure to the tithe-owner the benefit of the decision in the case of Rex v. Joddrell.

"That case, which is by no means satisfactory or intelligible, is believed to establish the doctrine-that as between the farmer and the tithe-owner, the farmer is to be rated, not only in respect of the net annual value of his land, but in respect also of his annual profits.

"If the relative liabilities of the farmer and the tithe-owner are to remain unaltered, the only course which can now be pursued is, not to rate the farmer's profits, but to reduce the assessment on the tithe-owner, so as to place it in the same proportion to the assessment on the farmers as if the farmer's profits were rated. The difficulty of even roughly estimating the farmer's profits; the dissatisfaction which the agitation of such questions has caused; the doubts which are entertained whether the decision in Rex v. Joddrell is sound, and whether it would be confirmed if the question is again agitated before the legal tribunals of the country; all tend to produce inconveniences which cannot be exaggerated. Mr. C. Shaw Lefevre, however, proposes to-morrow to move for leave to bring in a bill declaratory of the law on the subject, and to place the tithes and farms upon the same footing as to rating. The Poor Law Commissioners, although under much embarrassment upon this subject, wish to be entirely passive."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE'S BILL.

SIR,-It appears to me that the tithe-owners (the clergy, I might say,) are rather hasty and unguarded in complaining of Mr. Shaw Lefevre's Bill for making the tithe commutation rent charge rateable at the net amount. The bill was doubtless introduced to set aside the decision of the King's Bench in the case of Rex v. Joddrell, and it would have been more honest if that purpose had been openly avowed; but of the bill itself, as affecting the rating of tithes, the clergy have no cause to complain. The rent charge will be rateable at its net value-viz., at what it would let for, subject to the payment of rates, &c.; this is according to the principle laid down by Dr. Wollaston, as stated in the British Magazine, vol. xiii. page 246. Your correspondents complain that tithes will be rated much higher than heretofore. This is erroneous upon Dr. Wollaston's principle. I myself have never known tithes rated more favourably than upon the net value as compared with the rack rent of farms. I should be glad to see a case produced of a lower rating, excepting under the Joddrell decision; that decision was entirely a new thing. One of your correspondents (July, page 40,) complains of the unfairness of not allowing a profit to the clergyman as well as to the farmer. He mistakes the matter altogether; it is not the individual but the property that is rated or rateable. Property, whether lands or house, is worth a certain annual return to the proprietor, after payment of the expenses by which such return is procured; upon this sum it is rateable, without any reference whatever to the quality, trade, profession, or person of the proprietor. It is absurd, on the face of it, to say that property in the possession of a layman should be rated at one sum, but at another if in the possession

of a clergyman. A farm is rated on the estimated rental; in a parish where there were no tithes, this would amount to the ordinary rental plus the net value of what the tithes would be-i. e., the tithe would actually be rated at the net value. It is assumed all along by your correspondents that the farmer is not rated on his profits; the fact is, that there are no such profits arising from the land. It was certainly argued, or rather decided, by the judges, that interest of capital and tenant's remuneration were profits; but how can this be made out? A tenant's capital is his stock, implements of husbandry, and manure in the ground,-things required for cultivating the farm; his remuneration is, the wages of a superintendent to the farm, without whom the business could not be carried on at all.

The following statement will, I think, settle the question of profits. I take the particulars of the farm mentioned in the Joddrell cause, British Magazine, March, 1838. p. 251.

Suppose the landlord to take it into his own hands in order to realize these two rents, instead of letting it for one. First of all, he would have to engage a respectable, intelligent person as bailiff, whose wages must be reckoned, I think, at 1507. per annum; for I am quite sure that if an incompetent person were employed, the landlord, instead of two rents would get none. But I will put his wages at 1007. The farm was 350 acres. Seven pounds per acre for the first outlay is a moderate computation; hence 7 × 350 24501., the expense which the landlord would incur in limine. Let us see what the result would be at the end of ten years.

The returns for one year were-produce, 14591. 18s.; labour and expenses, 8597. 11s.; corn rent, 931. 6s. 6d.

The landlord's profits, or the whole profits derived from the land - 1627. annually. The farm was rated at 2267.!

=

There would still be the value of the first outlay, 24501., on the premises, but no atom of profit arising from it, neither is it rateable in respect of its being so many waggons and carts, and so many lumps of manure, &c., which are no more rateable commodities than a clergyman's books and furniture. If it be said that tithe was not subject to these disadvantages when originally assigned, I answer, that neither was it subject to the advantages of an expensive system of cultivation. It will be well to set the advantages against the disadvantages, and to say nothing about the altered condition of the country. Tithes are strictly a property; but that point is given up, if the question of compensation to a clergyman for duty and education be mooted. Perhaps you will decline to print this letter; but I hope not; for I