44<^ Anfwcr to Ohjervations on Tithes^ No. 13./'. 6[-']6. Nor. 



pie are fo ftupld and infenfible, as not to feel it ? * If their 

 weighty authority did not inform and convince me, * relative to 

 thj difagreeable fituation of thofe placed under the tithing fyf- 

 tem, ' in oppofition to this incontrovertible fci<^l, what informa- 

 tion or conviction could he expect me to obtain from the ' letter 

 of his friend in England ? ' Let me aik him, if he fcrioufly be- 

 ]ieves the defcription there given to be generally applicable to eve- 

 ry part of the kingdom where tithes are drav/n ? Does he be- 

 lieve that all, or moil, or even many tithe-owners, a£l in fuch an 

 oppreihvc manner ? Does he believe that one tithe-owner out of 

 5, of 10, of 20, or even out of 100, a£l: fo ? For my part, I 

 inuil believe inilances of fuch con'ducl: to be extremely rare j bc- 

 caufj, were they either general or frequent, they would excite 

 greater exertions to get rid of tithes than have hitherto appeared. 

 If he looks upon them in the fame light, he might have fpared 

 himfelf the trouble of inferting the letter •, for it does not 

 ilrengthen his caufe ; it only proves, what in all cafes liolds true, 

 that there are exceptions to the general rule. If he can perfuade 

 himfelf that fuch initances arc numerous, let him account for the 



feeble 



* The prevalent ufe of horfes, rather than oxen, in fpite of plaufiblc 

 iheories, is an apt illnilration of this conclufion. Your coircfpondent 

 himfelf allows that * It carries a fpecious appearance. ' It will be found 

 to he as JllJcl as it is fpecious, when fairly applied to rhe cafe at ifTue. 

 Farmers do not ufs oxen, becaufc^it is ?iot for thnr interejl, La!;dlords 

 do n )t purchafe, or connmute lay-tithea, becaufe it is not for their intcrefl, 

 Landlords and larmerb have hittieito entered into no concert, or ihewn 

 iiny vigorous defire to get church-tithes commuted, bccaufc it is not for 

 their intereji. Tithe-owners have hitherto taken no fteps to get an e- 

 ^uivalent for tithes, becaufe it is not for their intereji. 1 do not, how- 

 ever, pufli the argument to its full extent. I content myfelf with in- 

 ferring, that though tithes be a grievance, they are a more tolerably 

 one, than any plan hitherto propofed for getting free from them. The 

 illuflration will not be applied, by a fair reafoner, in any other fenfe \ 

 and I fubmit it to tf:e candour of your correfpondent, if his applica- 

 tion be the natural and juft one. With regard to * the common fenfc 

 of farmers, ' I fliould he forry if any thing, in my former or prefenc 

 letter, could be conilrued into an infinuation agaioll it ; and, as their 

 tamentfs under the -jexatioiis burden of tithes would be no proof of it, 

 1 infer from this tamenefs, that tithes are lefs vexatious than he is will- 

 ing to allow. Mr W. indeed tells us, * the difapprobation of the pco- 

 jilc at large againft them is become fo ftrong, that it mull fuid utterance 

 fomewherc ; ' but he afterwards lelh us, that, ia all former indanceo, 

 * the eloquence of the clergy wrought on the fympathy of tlie people ; 

 and that the landed intereft quickly gave up the caufe. ' A conclufive 

 proof, that tithes Iiave been, ar.d arc fevertly felt ! 



