The Commutation Act of 1836 settled a long-burning question. The gross value of the tithes was about six millions. These were commuted to four millions. The landlords not only gained two millions, but also increased rentals from the improvements which their tenants made when the tithe was commuted into a corn rent payable in money and permanent in quantity, but fluctuating yearly in value, so that any improved value given to land would not increase the amount of the rent charge. Again, the landlords gained about half a million a year by the various changes which were made in the extraordinary tithe rent charges. By the Commutation Act, the landlords and not the tenants are the real tithe-rent payers. But the landlords having contracted themselves out of the 80th clause of that Act, and having arranged with the tenants to pay the tithe rent-charge, a good deal of ill-feeling has sprung up in certain parts of the country, especially in Wales, on the part of the farmers against the tithe-owners. The Tithe Act of 1891 makes the owner of the lands and not the occupier liable for the tithe-rent charge. Henry VIII., as “Supreme Head of the Church of England,” made no change in her doctrines, and the clergy received their tithes as hitherto for saying masses for the repose of the souls of departed parishioners, granting absolution, teaching transubstantiation and doctrines as regards purgatory. The tithes and landed endowments were originally granted for teaching these doctrines. But in the reigns of his son and Elizabeth changes were made in both ritual and doctrines, and those incumbents who refused to adopt the doctrines, framed in accordance with those used in the Primitive Christian Church, were deprived of their incumbencies and consequently of their tithes and other Church endowments. But there was no physical transfer made then of such endowments, and the Church was the same Church of England, but reformed. Their successors, who embraced the doctrines against masses, purgatory, absolution, confession, transubstantiation, etc., were appointed on the condition of strictly complying with the Act of Uniformity and of the doctrines enunciated in the Thirty-nine Articles. It was in virtue of such compliance that they were put in possession by Acts of Parliament of the tithes and other endowments of the Church, which their predecessors had enjoyed. It was purely a change of usufructuary possessors without the least disturbance of the property. The new tenant solemnly engaged to comply with the new laws of the Church; the old tenant refused to do so, and had therefore to leave. That was all. The incoming trustee held his endowments by a Parliamentary Title. The present usufructuary possessors of Church endowments hold them also on the above conditions, and by the same Parliamentary Title. And as Parliament gave the Title, it can also change the Title. But how do matters stand now? Dr. Vaughan, the Roman Catholic