1803. Reply to Mr T. S. on Tytlts. 513 



proposed to deprive the tjthc-holders cf their property, Tvlthw 

 out , iving full value ^n lieu of it. 1 certainly, however, ad- 

 mitted their right, and prop' jed a full and complete remu- 

 tierat'on. I valued tjtbes at ?. just price, and mo^t vvillinglj' 

 allowed the ov.rcrs to participate of all the after profits. 



Whether tjthes are to be considered as a rea] estate, or as 

 a tax or rent-charge upon the estate, are questions, in my o- 

 pinion, of little moment ; seeing that every proprietor in Eng- 

 land may imitate the late Lord Lonsdale, and lay waste his 

 property, if he chnscs. The fact is, that tythe is a tax up- 

 on produce, and only exigible when produce is raised. It is 

 something similar to the old income tax, which was levied 

 upon the incom.e of the p?^yer, and did not affect Iiis property 

 in the most distant manner. Precisely in the lilvC way, does' 

 the tythe-tax operate. If you raise ten bolls, or rather ten 

 quarters of grain j or breed ten calves, and so forth, you must 

 give one of each, or pay the value of it, to the person who is 

 possessed of the right, whether he be a layman or a clergy- 

 man. That a payment of this nature deserves to be consi- 

 dered in the same light as it the receiver actually possessed 

 a given share of the estate from whici! the grain and calves^ 

 &:c. were produced, can hardly be seriously maintained. The 

 proprietor of the land m^ay sell every inch of it, if he is not 

 tied up by legal restraints. Nay, he can sell the very spot: 

 upon which the grain, calves, &:c. were produced ; so con- 

 sequently has no partner in the estate. No doubt he is 

 liable, by the laws of the land, to a pay the tenth of 

 what produce he may raise, to the tythe-holder ; but this is 

 merely a charge Upon the premises, irrsposed bylaw, in or- 

 der to defray the expence of certain public purposes. But as 

 We fully agree in the extent of tJie right, it were folly to 

 waste v/ords upon the nature of it. The difference betwixt 

 us lies conceriiing the pov/er of the legislature to regulate the 

 exercise of the right ; that is, whether with justice the tax 

 can be changed from a tentli of the produce, to an annual 

 payment in money, according to the rents charged upon the 

 respective properties. I formerly endeavoured to prove that 

 such a commutation would promote the interest of all par- 

 ties ; and your correspondent, without denying my positions, 

 or attempting to invalidate the arguments used in support of 

 them, seems to maintain that the consent of the holders is 

 jiccessary to make the m.easure just ; and that the evil is not 

 £0 great as to call for legislative interference. 



J observe in the remarks which you have thought proper 

 to make on Mr T. S.'s answ^ers, that you very apropos no- 

 tice the thirlage-bill, \vhich undoubtedly is in every point a» 



na^ogous 



