This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1832 Excerpt: ...of the gross produce, in cases not only where it is not actually received, through the forbearance and kind feeling of the incumbent, but where It could not be received because the expensive cultivation would be immediately discontinued if it were; whereas Rent is always computed at what might be obtained. Would not the check which would be thereby given to improved cultivation in consequence of the Tithe, during the occupation of such tenant, prevent the application of capital, and be a check therefore to production? Without doubt it does operate in that way, to a certain extent, but principally with respect to those improvements which return a remote profit. Since it is not the interest of the incumbent himself to claim a Tithe when the claim would diminish production, I am inclined to think that in operations completed within a moderate period, the incumbent and the farmer usually come to an arrangement; but even those operations may sometimes be prevented, from the mere apprehension that the claim would be advanced. In arable land, would not your Grace estimate the value of the Tithe as about a fifth of the tithe-frec rent? I cannot speak as to that, since it is so extremely variable upon land of different qualities. Even portions of land that produce very nearly the same crops will, in one district, through the natural richness of the soil, and the facility of obtaining manure, &c, produce these crops at so much less expense than in another, that the gross produce of the two districts will be far more nearly on a level than the net produce, on which last depends the rent to be obtained. Your Grace observed that the church cess was equally objectionable to the landholders with Tithe; have you seen any of the printed forms demanding church cess that ...