^5© Remarhs by the Conducloirt Nov.- 



which removed, in a great meafure, the obje^lions urged by him 

 and others againft a commutation, or he would not have fent us 

 the above anlwers. If the points at i/lue are, the nature of the 

 right by ivhich tithes are held, and the extent of the evil arifing 

 from thcm^ we ihould fuppofe that the qucftion is comprelled with- 

 in narrow bounds. If tithes are an evil (and Mr T. S. admits 

 that they are), then the nature of the right is but a fecondary ob- 

 je6l, becaufe private right ought always to give place to public 

 advantage- This is a principle fully rccognited by our laws, and 

 hath been a fled upon in innumerable inftanccs. We will not 

 wafie time in detailing proofs, as the dulkfl of our readers muft 

 be fufliciently acquainted with (uch legal interferences. 



Suppoimg, for argument's fake, that lay-impropriators have ay ' 

 good a right to tith$;s, as landed proprietors have to their efbates, 

 it does not follow that the Lcgiflature^ is precluded from changing 

 the mode of payment, fiiouldtney, in their wifdom, conceive fuch a 

 jneafure to be neccflary and expedient. Shall we remind Mr 

 T. S. of the thirlage bill, which enabled a commiutation analo- 

 gous in every refpecft to the owt under confideration ? The thirl- 

 age bill provideci,full remuneration for the multures thereby com- 

 rnu'ted ; and we are clear, that', in the event of fuch being made 

 to tithcholdtrs, as propofed by the Friend to Improvements y no 

 polhble injury could be done to that body of men. 



In our opinion, Mr T. S. does not advert to the ground upon 

 which a commutation is foh'.ited. It is not that the intereil of 

 individuals, either of one clafs or of another, might be benefited ; 

 but merely becaufe, without fome regulation of that nature, the 

 agriculture of the country cannot be improved to the extent it is 

 capable of. When he admitted that tithes were an evil, he in 

 fa6l furrendered the fortrefs, fo fir as its defence refted upon his 

 llioulders \ for afiuredly every evil ought to be removed, the mo- 

 ment it is dilcovered, in order that the oppofite advantages may 

 be enjoyed. 



We are at a lofs to difcover v/hat Mr T. S. means, when he 

 declares (p. 447.)* th^t landlords have it in their power to remove 

 the exaction in kind, by purchafing their tithes. Does he mean 

 to infmuate, that an exchange has been erected for the accommo- 

 dation of fellers and puichafers, and that laics will be made the 

 moment the payer is diipofed to treat with the holder ? Certainly 

 not : but if fomething of this kind is not meant, then all his argu-- 

 mcnts and inferences on this head inuft go for nothing. So far 

 from falcs being optional, it will be found that lay-tithes are mofl- 

 ly in the pofllihon of ancient families, whofe eftatcs are entailed ; 

 confcquently, noTncafure, except an a6^ of Parliament, is fulH- 

 y^ient to procure the neccflary relief. 



WI:c|.her tithes arc ?n evil of fuch magnitude as rcprefentec^ 



by 



