glebe lands. The Glebe Lands Act makes definite provision for the payment by the vendor incumbent of any sum found to be due in respect of dilapidations on lands sold. The income to be derived from the investment of the purchase money may be appropriated for the payment of the sum found to be due. On the other hand the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, while strict as to the assessment of dilapidations, affords facilities for borrowing the necessary money from the Queen Anne's Bounty on favourable terms.

Letting of Glebe Lands.

An incumbent may, with the consent of the Bishop and patron only, lease his lands at a farming rent for 14 years, and under certain conditions for a longer period, but the statutory conditions are such that few tenants would accept them. The lessee must pay all taxes, charges, rates, assessments, and impositions; must not underlet without the consent of the bishop, patron, and incumbent, by deed under seal; must leave the land with the gates, drains, fences of every description and other fixtures and things thereupon, or belonging thereto, in good and substantial repair and condition; must insure and lay out the money received, and all such other sums as may be necessary in rebuilding, &c., &c. Further, a lease so granted can be surrendered only with the consent under seal of the bishop, patron, and incumbent. A lease made otherwise is void, necessarily, and a new incumbent would not be bound by it; this fact may have given rise to the idea that a tenancy terminates immediately on the death of an incumbent.

A glebe tenant holding from year to year is entitled

at least to remain in occupation till the end of the year of tenancy current when the incumbent dies, but it is doubtful whether he can hold any longer without the consent of the next incumbent. There is the further element of uncertainty involved in a possible change of incumbents, caused otherwise than by death, although in that case the tenant could not be disturbed without notice. It appears essentially paradoxical that an incumbent should be able to bind his successor by a lease (even though it be granted with consent), but should not be able to secure to a tenant an ordinary year to year holding. Such, however, appears to be the case. The subject is perhaps worth more attention than is here given to it.

J. HENRY SABIN, Professional Associate.

SECTION II.

COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO PAPERS IN THE "TRANSACTIONS," &c.

On Mr. J. R. Corbett's Paper on "The Economic Theory of Rent.”

("Transactions," Vol. XXXIV., p. 297.)

NOTE BY THE AUTHOR.

I should define rent as "the value of the use of land," and capital as "wealth which can be so applied to land "as to increase the produce thereof."

Macleod takes a totally different definition. According to him, "Rent is the sum paid by one person" to "to "another for the use of land; hence, unless the land " is owned by one person and let to another, there can be

no such thing as rent." But the English law insists on the insertion in every parish rate-book of a gross estimated rental for property which is occupied by its owner, and for which, therefore, according to Macleod's definition, there can be no such thing as rent.

Macleod says: "Let us suppose that there is a large "tract of country belonging to a landlord, either the State or a private person, and comprising many different kinds of soil of varying fertility.

"Now suppose that any portion of this soil is parcelled "out among families in such a way that each family has

got only just exactly enough for its own subsistence. "Those placed on the better lands will, of course, require a smaller amount of land than those placed on inferior "lands.

"Now, if the land were parcelled out in this way, "it is manifest that these families could pay no rent for "the land, because they have no surplus produce to pay as rent." So the poor landlord, who owns all the property, will starve to death.

Now let us suppose, as invarably happens when an economic situation of this kind occurs, that the landlord prefers not to starve, and threatens the tenants with eviction. How much rent will the landlord be able to exact? How much better off will a family be with "just exactly enough land for its own subsistence" than the same family with no land at all? Instead of land giving no rent, rents will be abnormally high. Land will command a "famine price" just like any other commodity of which there is not enough to supply the urgent needs of the community.

J. ROOKE CORBETT, Professional Associate.