514 ^^py ^0 ^^^' ^' '^' ^^^ Tythes, I)f€, 



Tiarlogous to the measure I have recomme-nded. I maj add* 

 that interferences of tiiis kind are made every day with pri- 

 vate p-Opcrtj, many of them assuredly known to your cor- 

 respondent. Shall. I rem^ind him of the defence-act passed in 

 last Session of Parliament ; which laid proprietors under the 

 necessity of relinquishing their property, whether they would 

 or not, in order that barracks might be erected thereupon. 

 Such a measure, thoug-h a stx'ong one, did not excite sur- 

 prize, because the records of Parliament are full of similar 

 Instances of legislative interference. Indeed, every road and 

 . canal bill contains clauses of the like import ; and there art 

 Jew of our great towns but have, at one time or other, soli.- 

 cited public assistance, to -compel proprietors to make a sur- 

 render of houses and land for their accommodation and con- 

 venience. Mr T. S. may tell me^ as he has done already, in , 

 .the above paper, that all these things * proceed upon the un- 

 * deniable principle, that subjects must surrender a part 

 ■* of their property for the security of the remainder.'. I re- 

 joice at the concession, because it supports vcij argument in 

 xXiQ amplest manner. I contend^ that tythes arc an obstacle 

 to the improvement of the country, and the same is admitted 

 hj my antagonist ; therefore, upon his own prineiples> the 

 tj-thc-system ought to be amended, in order that the country 

 may be fully improved. I observe he marks the word " part" 

 in Italicks, as if the .amendriient could not j'Js-tly go farther ; 

 "but this is manifestly a distinction, without a difference, and 

 was not acted upon in the case of the South' Bridge of Edin- 

 hurgh y where numberless proprietors had to reliuquisli their 

 rvhole heritable property, in order that the good town might 

 i)e ornamented iirvd improved. 1 have already given my opi- ' 

 Jiion in favoms of a full compensation being secured to tythe- 

 holders ; and this being done, must maintain that a regulation 

 of tythes would be no greater stretch of power than has been • 

 a hundred thousand times exercised. 



In the next place, I may remark, that Mr T. S. admits 

 that tythes are unfavourfible to impro\-ement ; therefore 

 I* have a right to infer, that unless he is of opinion that 

 .an obstacle to Liriprovement should be suficred to remain, 

 he must of course acknowledge the propriety of cor- 

 recting the evil, so far as its existence can be ascertained. 

 Jn makui'g this admission^ perhaps he was not aware of 

 the consequences ; for, to have resisted successfully, he 

 ought to have contended, as has been done by many others, 

 ihat tj'thes were not an obstacle to improvements, therefore 

 not calling for legislative .interference. Perhaps the evil of 

 tythes, like the rich man's riches, or the poor man's poverty, 

 bafs been exaggerated 3 but in the way which he argues the 



question. 



