44Z Anfwer io Ohfervat'ions on Tithes, No. 13. p. 61-7^. Nor- 



The Inftances which he protUices, of lesral interference with- 

 private property, are not quite to the purpofe. It is well known, 

 that tithes in North Britain were not commuted ; nor are they, 

 flri^lly fpeakinj^Tt commuted at this day. At the Reformation, 

 they were wreRed from the Church, or rather tacitly given 

 up by her in the phrenzy of fanaticifm. By the Crown, who 

 thus p^ot hold of them, they were profufely beftowed on people 

 of influence, refumed and aljenated a fecorrd time, with liberty 

 to proprietors of land to bring them to a valuation and fale, un- 

 der thie burdrn of providing for the reformed clergy. Thefe 

 ufurpations, grants, and regulations of the Crown, were after- 

 wards ratified by Parliament. But the proceedings, both of the 

 King and Parliament, bear evident marks of having been influ- 

 enced by the turbulent fpirit of the times. And, farely, a mea- 

 fure originating in the ufurpation of the Prince, and carried on 

 by his arbitrary decifion, though afterwards adopted by Parlia- 

 ment, cannot be recommended as a precedent for the abolition of 

 tithes in South Britain, in the prefent fettled fiate of govf^rnment, 

 when property of every kind is clearly defined and prote6ied by 

 law. The jurifdidion a61: is rather more in point ; yet it only 

 took away privileges, incompatible with the order and fafety of 

 the community, with the profeiTed or implied confent of fome 

 pofleflbrs, though under a violent oppofition from others ; part 

 of whom ce-rtainly were actuated by the principle of family pride 

 to retain hereditary honours, while the other, and perhaps the 



greater 



not to carry me farther back tlian I go myfelf, and that is only to the 

 law of England, as it has been for ages, and is now, refpefting tithes. 

 By that law, they are held and conveyed juft as eftates are. I'he i/jar- 

 iery title-dee fly or whatever name it legally obtains, which gives the- pro- 

 prietor a riglit to the lands, contains the titular's right to the tithes,. 

 If, in any inflance, lands are held by prefcriptive, not by written rights,- 

 fo are the tythcs drawn from them, whether by laym.en or clergy. And 

 where two properties belong to tv\'0 individuals or bodies by the fame 

 common right, there is equal injuftice in compellir.g a fale or commuta- 

 tion of tlie lefTer as of the greater. When he afks — * what right the 

 Church has to' be fub filled by the landed intereft alone?' he forgets 

 that the queftion relates to tith' s, not to the fuLfift^':x<' of the Church, 

 rmd would not be in the leaft afFefted though none of them went to fubfift 

 her members. With regard to the Irifli union, I apprehend it was ac- 

 compliflied agreeably to the wiflics of a vail majority, in both kirigdoms, 

 of thofe who had a legal intereft in it ; and fo Mill tithes he commuted, 

 when a majority of thofe interefled in the comrciittation Ihall agree uporf 

 it. At leaft, I have always underftood, that all a£ls of the Legifla- 

 tare, interfering with private property, were pafled with the confent, 

 %rten upon the application^ of a majority of the people concerned. 



