1803] Ohfervations OTiTythes. 7 1 



them, I might ftate» that the commutation already eQabliflied in 

 North Britain proves that fuch a ineaf'ure may be accomphflied 

 without the injury apprehended. I have a higher opniion of your 

 correlpondent's good fenie than to fuppole he really labours 

 under luch apprehenfions. Tythes, it is plain, may be commut- 

 ed with as much facility as the duty on tea was converted into a 

 window-tax, or, as more recently happened, when the coal-tax 

 was changed for an additional duty on fpirits. The Britilh Le- 

 giflature have, in many inftances, (and certainly fuch a power is 

 the inherent right of every government) interfered with private 

 property. 1 might quote the jurifdiction a£c, which is ex^.dtly in 

 point, nay, every canal, road, or harbour bill, that ever palled, 

 will bear me out : but what need is there for any argument at all, 

 fmce we all feelingly remember an a6t lately palTed, which, if ic 

 had not been repealed, would, in a given number of years, ac- 

 cording to circumflances, have cut deep into the property of both 

 land holders and tythe-holders. Conlider tbefe things, and fay 

 whether the regulation of tythes would trench more upon the I'a- 

 cred rights of individuals than the inftances of legiflative power 

 that I have quoted. 



Thecaufe why the owners of tythes are alarmed, when the fub- 

 ject of commutation is m>entioned, proceeds from an apprchcr- 

 (ion that the difcuffion may be fatal to their interefts. Your 

 correfpondent ftares their right to the tenth of the produce, or 

 to the fifth of the foil, to be as ftrong as that of landholders to 

 the remainder. I prefume he is here in an error. It was never 

 underflood that an annuitant, or a fervant, whofe annuity or 

 wages were paid out of the rents or produce of an eflate, irad 

 any right at all to the eftate itfelf, but that their claim upon the 

 premid^es ceafed the moment that luch annuity or wages were 

 paid. In the bufinefs of tythes, lay impropriators may fairly be 

 conlidered in the light of annuitants, and clergymen as lervants 

 who undertake to perform luch and fuch v.'ork upon certain con- 

 ditions. The lay-impropriator, like other annuitants, receives 

 his annual payment without difcharging any duties. The cler- 

 gyman, on the contrary, renders a return for his ftipend or 

 wages ; and it is prefumed, that if he fails in rendering this re- 

 turn, he could not legally claim the emolumeBts. 



If thefe things be a juft reprefentation, what fhalj,! fay con- 

 cerning the alternative held out, whether the property fhould be 

 fold for the benefit of the real proprieiors, or of thofe who, in the 

 language of Rodondo, may be confidered as a mortgage upon the 

 prem.ifles. To luppofe for a moment fuch an alternative uccel- 

 lary, is highly ridiculous. Thekeeneft adverfarics to tythes have 



never 



