j;i2 Reply to Mr T, S. on Tythes, DtCi 



T» THE CONDUCTOR OF THE FARMER'S MAGAZIN». 

 Reply to Mr T. S, on Tythes *. 



Allow me to say that Mr T. S. has either fallen intoi 

 % radical error concerning tjthes, or is determined not to un^ 

 derstand the principles upon which I combated that tax. Iii 

 Taj first letter, p. 6i, I shewed, in a variety of instances, the 

 pernicious consequences of an exaction in kind ; and demon-^ 

 strated that tythe, though at first sight an equal burden, was, 

 in reality, the most unequal tax in the kingdom. I then pro- 

 posed a plan for commuting this tax ; v/hich, in mj humble 

 opinion, silenced the objections offered hy him and others 

 against a commutation. This plan, the result of much deli- 

 "beration, tended to benefit the tythe-holder, because it ad- 

 mitted him to a share of every advantage which might arise 

 from the growing prosperity of the country. It permitted 

 proprietors to reap the full value of their respective proper- 

 ties, which cannot be got under existing circumstances. It 

 secured the tenantry in the quiet and peaceable possession of 

 the lands occupied by them, and kept the whole manure upon 

 the premises, instead of allowing the soil to be \(ig9}\Y robbed 

 of a tenth of its food. In a word, it removed all the trouble 

 And discontent which for ages has accompanied an exaction in 

 kind, and enabled every agriculturist to cultivate his land in 

 the most approved way, without subjecting industry to a tax 

 levied in direct proportion to the abilities of the occupier. 



In the answer to my observations, none of these things seem 

 to have been considered by Mr T. S. He is so enveloped 

 with ideas of private interest, as altogether to neglect the 

 prosperity of the public, though it was upon this broad footing 

 that my arguments rested. Tlic principles, upon which I sup- 

 ported a commutation, were, that agriculture would, by such 

 a measure, be greatly benefited ; and, of course, the interest 

 of every class concerned therein, whether tythe-holdefs, pro- 

 prietors, or farmers, would be much advanced. Whether I 

 have not been so fortunate as to make myself understood, or 

 whether the subject is embraced on too large a scale for your 

 correspondent's comprehension, cannot at this time be ascer- 

 tained j but certain it is, that few passages of the answers ap- 

 ply to the real question. He says a good deal about right and 

 wrong ; about the extent of tythes, and the tenure upon which 

 t3iey arc held ; and, in fact, argues the question, as if I had 



propooeil 

 * No 16. p. 440. 



