1803.] Ohfervatlons en Tythes, 75 



correfpondcnt, I am fully as well dirpofed to give them a com- 

 plete remuneration in the event of an exa61ion in kind being re- 

 linquished. Their rights, at leaft thofe of hy impropriators, 

 have a long prefcription on their fide •, and, in the cafe of the 

 clergy, few people would go farther to place them in a comfort- 

 able (late, though I would do this in fuch a way as might be 

 confiftent with the real clerical character, and the welfare of the 

 country. 



One or two pafiages more of Mr T. S's. letter deferve animad* 

 verfion , but I have really occupied fo much room, that I am ap- 

 prehenfive of encroaching upon your patience. I cannot however 

 altogether pafs what is faid concerning the Duke of Bedford, Mr 

 Young, pleafure grounds, and working with oxen ; but the ob- 

 fervation fliall be a fhort one. If an individual manages his pro- 

 perty in an improper way, he certainly is the greateil fufFerer : 

 .and a law to compel every man to become a good farmer, would 

 be fully as ridiculous as a law which enaded that every man 

 i- fhould pofTefs common fenfe. A man polTefTed of grafs ground 

 will break it up if he fuppofes it his intereft. In fome cafes, 

 his pleafure would not be promoted tlijereby ; and, upon a fimilar 

 principle, every farmer will work or refrain from the em- 

 ployment of oxen. There is neither law nor cuftom to pre- 

 ^ vent any one from ufing his liberty In thefe refpe^ls ; but where 

 is the analogy betwixt fuch matters and tythes ? Let a perfoa 

 be never fo much convinced of the Impolicy of the tax, ftill he is 

 not permitted to refufe payment ; whereas in the working of 

 oxen, or breaking up of grafs grounds, every one is left to a«St in 

 fuch a way as appears moft conducive to his own intereft. 



I might have noticed the paffages under confideration in a dif- 

 ferent way. GraKting that the Duke of Bedford and Mr Youn^ 

 were both in the v.Tong ; that oxen are preferable to hories for 

 farm labour, and that every acre of grafs ground in the kingdom 

 ought to be broke up, how can the truth or faliity of thcfe cir- 

 cumflances aifedt the tythe queftion ? If I \yere called to appear 

 before your correfpondent, and charged with breaking the fixth 

 command, he fureiy would not receive an accVifation from me 

 againft another for breaking the eight command as a relevant 

 defence. I grant that the companion made betwixt tythes and 

 horfes carries a fpecious appearance. Both are condemned by ma- 

 ny agricultural writers, the laft chiefly by theoretical ones. Yet, 

 fays your correfpondent, oxen are not ufed nor are tythes com- 

 muted. I don't think, however, that the inference made is a can^ 

 did one. Every farmer may work oxen if he pleafes, but, as thev 

 are not wrought, fure evidence is furniflicd that horfes are more 

 profitable. The abrogation of tytlics cannot take place in this 



manner. 



