incomes of the fundholders are to be reckoned as part of the general incomes of the country is, that they are payments made in exchange for services done. And to make this still more clear, we may take as examples the cases of persons who do not receive permanent salaries for continuous services rendered to the State, like judges, and public officials, but those who do it a temporary service, like public contractors. Suppose, for example, the Government contracts with a private shipbuilder to build them some iron-clads: then the money earned by the shipbuilder is part of the general income of the country, precisely in the same way as if he had built them for private persons: and yet it comes out of the general taxes of the country. The same principle applies to all other public contractors; army contractors of all sorts, contractors for supplying clothing, arms, rum, bacon, beef, and other stores of all sorts. So contractors for building the great public offices; and all other public contractors whatever. The incomes of all these contractors are reckoned as part of the general income of the country, precisely in the same way as if they had performed these contracts for private persons. And if these incomes are part of the general income when the services are performed to private individuals how can they cease to be so when performed for the State, which is only an aggregate of private individuals, and who pay the price of these services in taxes? Such an idea is manifestly absurd on the face of it. Now the case of the fundholders is precisely similar to these great public contractors. They do a service to the nation by lending their money to the State for some public want, and they have the same right to be paid for this service, as all these other public contractors have; and their income, i. e., the funds, is part of the general income of the country, just as much as the incomes of the other public contractors.

In the preceding extract we see another example of Mill's confusion in the use of the word Wealth. He says "in the wealth of mankind nothing is included which does not of itself answer some purpose of use and pleasure." But he says-" to an individual anything is wealth which, though useless in itself, enables him to claim from others a part of their stock of things, useful or pleasant." Thus the essence of "national" wealth, according to Mill, consists in utility or pleasure; the essence of "individual" wealth, in exchangeability. It is needless to point

out that such a distinction between "national" and "individual " wealth is utterly unphilosophical and inadmissible. If the essence of individual wealth consists in "purchasing power" or exchangeability, the essence of national wealth must equally consist in purchasing power. A merchant's credit, according to Mill and popular ideas, is his purchasing power: if individual wealth resides in exchangeability or purchasing power, the essence of national wealth must equally reside in purchasing power. Α merchant's credit, according to Mill, is his purchasing power; so the public credit is the purchasing power of the nation. A private debt is the Right of the creditor to demand a sum of money from a private person; a public debt is the Right of the creditor to demand a sum of money from the State. Where is there any distinction in nature between these Rights and Duties? It is obvious there is none. These Rights, public and private, are saleable, therefore they are equally wealth, and for the same

reason.

On TITHES.

16. We now come to another species of Incorporeal Property of great importance, TITHES.

In ecclesiastical law, Tithes are the Right to demand the tenth part of the yearly profits, or increase, from the land; the stock upon land; and the personal industry of the inhabitants.

Tithes of the increase of the land itself, such as corn, hay, hops, fruits of all sorts, are called pradial Tithes; Tithes from the increase of the stock upon land, such as calves, lambs, pigs, poultry, eggs, butter, cheese, &c., are called mixed Tithes; and Tithes from the profits of personal industry of all sorts, handicrafts, arts, and professions, are called personal Tithes.

And here it may be remarked that Tithes, like an Annuity, do not mean the things actually paid, the corn, the calves, the money, but the Right to demand them. And as it is by no means improbable that there may be an inquiry into the nature of these rights before long, it will be of some advantage to give a succinct history of their origin: and for this, it may be as well to say, once for all, that we are chiefly indebted to Selden and Spelman.

All nations of antiquity seem to have considered the tenth part of the profit from any source as the portion due from the

R

reverence of mankind to the Deity. The laws regarding the payment of tithes among the Jews are too well known to require to be quoted here. But we may observe that the Jewish doctors themselves held that the payment of them was limited to the land of Israel. Jews in foreign lands paid none; neither were any paid after the destruction of the second temple, even in Canaan, because there was no priesthood to pay them to.

The Syrians, the Phoenicians, Arabians, Ethiopians, Carthaginians, Romans, and Greeks, all held the same opinion. The Pelasgi who settled in Italy gave the tenth of the profits of their maritime trading to Apollo at Delphi, according to the command of the oracle of Dodona.1 It was the custom of wealthy Romans to dedicate a tithe of their profits to Hercules. This custom was said to have been introduced by Recaranus in the time of Evander, when he recovered his cattle which Cacus had stolen. This, however, was a voluntary custom, not enforced by any law, civil or religious. It extended to money gained by trafficking, and to the spoils of war. Thus the parasite says he must gain as much as he can that he may offer the tenth to Hercules

"Hæc veniisse jam est opus quantum potest,

Uti decumam partem Herculi polluceam."2

Lucius Mummius offered a tenth of the spoils of Corinth to Hercules. Hence the tenth was often called pars Herculanea; and several other authors speak of this custom.

They often, however, offered tithes to other Deities. Camillus devoted a tenth of the spoils to Apollo; 3 Postumius, the Dictator, offered a tenth of his spoils to Ceres, Bacchus, and Proserpina: Fortune and Mercury also received the tithes from travellers and tradesmen. This custom continued during the Empire, and Justinian enacted that if any person died having vowed tithes, his heir should be bound by the vow. And the same law was held good among the Christians.

The Greeks frequently offered their tithes to Apollo, who seems to have been their principal favourite in this respect: but Jupiter Olympius, Neptune, Diana of Ephesus, Juno, and Pallas, sometimes shared these honours. The Carthaginians sent a tithe of Sicilian spoils to Hercules at Tyre; and the Arabians had a law that every merchant should carry his frankincense to their chief

1 Dionys. Hal., l. 1. 2 Plautus in Sticho, l. 221. 3 Plutarch in Camill.

city Sabota, and offer a tenth of it to Sabis: and no sale was allowed till it was paid.1

17. For four hundred years after the foundation of Christianity there is no vestige of any such right as Tithes being claimed or allowed in the church. The bounty of the early converts far exceeded a tithe. At Jerusalem, certainly, the infant sect attempted for some time a community of goods. Philo Judæus says that in Egypt and many other provinces the Christians lived together in societies, in monasteries, where none possessed private property; no man was rich and none poor: all divided their substance with the necessitous. This community of goods, however, was not generally adopted: the disciples at Antioch had separate property:2 and St. Paul directed3 the converts at Corinth and in Galatia to make weekly collections, when every one should give according to his ability. For these weekly offerings, monthly collections were afterwards substituted, called stipes, the name given to the collections made by the heathens for their temples and deities. Dionysius Corinthius in a letter to Soter, Bishop of Rome, 170 A.D., congratulates him on the liberality of the Roman church and this continued up at least till the great persecution under Maximinian and Diocletian in 304, as Eusebius testifies.

So Tertullian, about 200 A.D., speaking of the flourishing condition of the African and other churches, says that whatever they had in their treasury was not raised by taxes as the price of religion every one brings his modest offering once a month, or when he pleases, and how he can. No one is obliged, but contributes of his own accord. These are considered as pledges of devotion, and are not spent in eating, drinking, and feasting, but in supporting and burying the poor, and destitute orphans, the old and sick, and other charitable purposes.

Urban, Bishop of Rome, 227 A.D., first ordained that the Church might receive lands, and that they should not belong to any private individual, but that their revenues should be distributed proportionably to every one. Origen also asserts it to be utterly unlawful for Christian Ministers to possess any lands, and that their rents should be distributed among the necessitous; and 1 Pliny Hist., 12, c. 32. 3 1 Cor., 16, 2.

2 Acts, 11, 29.

Homil., 16, in Genes.

that ministers should not have more than enough for their simple diet and clothing. Stewards, named Economi, were appointed to manage the property of the church.

Origen seems to have been the first who began to affirm that Tithes are due by Divine Law. He has a homily on the first fruits of the Law, in which he says that some things of the Mosaic Law are to be literally observed, and among these he names first fruits and tithes. But no other writer of the church seems for a long time to have repeated that opinion. Cyprian, writing about half a century later, blames the general coldness of the devotion in his day, and the neglect of giving offerings, compared with the liberality of former times, and says" but now we do not even give tithes of our substance."1 And until the end of the fifth century there are no authentic documents to shew that there was any payment to the Church of any tenth part, as a Tithe, claimed. Whatever may have been the case in other parts, the oblations of the Christians at Rome so enriched the clergy that Ammianus Marcellinus says that their wealth was much wondered at, and envied and St. Chrysostom preached a sermon expressly against those who envied the clergy their wealth, which he said came only from the voluntary offerings of the faithful.

Some alleged constitutions of the Church assert the divine right of Tithes; but Selden has shewn that these are notorious forgeries; and none of the Councils of the Church for 600 years make any mention of tithes, even in those canons relating to the lands, goods, offerings, and other revenues of the Church.

But about the end of the fifth century a custom began gradually to grow up of endowing churches with tithes, for the payment of the abbots, the poor, and the clergy; and as voluntary liberality waxed colder, the duty of paying them began to be asserted more strongly and distinctly.

That intrepid prelate, St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, was the first boldly to assert that tithes are due by divine right. In a sermon on repentance, he says-" It is not sufficient for us to bear the name of Christians, if we do not do Christian works. God orders that tithes are to be demanded of us every year of all fruits, cattle, &c."-"Whosoever is conscious that he has not faithfully paid his tithes, let him immediately amend his fault, and faithfully pay his tithes, and not offer less to God at any time, of his corn, 1 De unitate Ecclesia, § 23.