1^03. Anfiver to Ohfervai'ions on Tithes ^ No. \i^. p. 6l'']6. 44 1 



witli or without the confeiit of the holders: whereas, I look 

 upon them to be a facred, unalienable right, lieJd by ilir fame, 

 or at leafl as flroiig a tenure, as the lands out of w})Ich ihey 

 are drawn, and liable to be allccled by any a(^t of the Legidature, 

 juft a-o land is alFccled, and no farther. The Liritilii conlUtu- 

 tion can no more authorife all the tithes to be fold or commuted 

 than it can authorife all the land in the kingdom to be fold or 

 commuted *. For the found nefs of this do6irine, I refer your 

 corrcfpondent to any lawyer of reputation in the filler king- 

 doms. 



The 



* It was in ilhdlrating tliis part of the fubjed, that I introduced 

 pkafure grminJs and had farming. Your correfpondcnt aflcs, * V/hat 

 analogy is there between thefe matters and tithes ? ' With fubmiffion 

 to him, there is an evident and flriking ' analogy between thefe mat- 

 ters ' and the argument they were intended to elucidate. For if the 

 reafon for abolil'hing or commuting tithes be, that the profperity of 

 agriculture requires it ; then, for the fame reafon, pleafure grounds 

 ought to be occafionally in tillage, and bad farmers turned out of their 

 poffelTions — not * compelled to be good ones j ' language neither ufed 

 by me, nor to be fairly inferred from any thing I advanced. I humbly 

 apprehend, that this meafiire, fubjefting pleafure grounds, and land 

 improperly managed, to a regular rotation of crops, according to the 

 acknowledged rules of good hufbandry, would be of m.ore effential fer- 

 vice to the intereft of agriculture, than getting free from tithes. And' 

 I alfo apprehend, (though here I fpeak under corredion), that a Bri- 

 ti{h Parliament can, by its inherent power, enforce the former without 

 confulting thofe concerned, but cannot touch the latter. I fhould in- 

 deed be heartily forry to fee this inherent power enforcing fuch an ar- 

 bitrary meafure ; for I agree with your corrcfpondent in thinking, that 

 every gentleman is entitled to manage his pleafure ground, and every 

 tenant his farm, in the manner that appears moil profitable, or even 

 mofl agreeable, to themfelves ; and that both are fufficiently puniflied 

 in being difappointed of their expeded objed. But the queition rtill 

 recurs — Why fhould tithe-holders be under a compulfion, for the fake 

 of agriculture, from which others are exempted, in a cafe where agri- 

 culture is equally coiicemed ? I do not urge the tillage of pleafure 

 grounds, or the ejedlion of bad farmers ; I only contend, that thefe ai'e 

 more eafily efFe6led than the commutation of tithes, and fully as bene- 

 ficial to agriculture ; and that, from regard to confiltency, the advo- 

 cates for the one fnould be equally zealous for the other. 



N. B. — It may be proper to mention here, that, fince the above was 

 written (with a view of being inferted in No. 14.), a new opponent 

 has arifen in that Number, under the fignature of W., to whofe long 

 reafoning about rights what is faid in the text, and in this note, may 

 ^ confidered as a fuiliwieat anfwer. I would beg of that gentleman 



TOiL. lY. NO. ids Q S ^ ^^^ 



