l8oo. On the Abolition o/lithes. 39? 



have, not merely a deduftion from the full value of the farm, 

 equal to the amount of the tithe, but alfo an additional al- 

 lowance for the trouble and inconvenience he is put to, from 

 the drawing of it in kind. 



Second, With refpedt to the Clergy, they are of all par- 

 ties the mod intereiled to fee the tithe abolKhed y for, of all 

 modes of receiving their falaries, the molt difagreeable and 

 vexatious muft be that of gathering in the tithe in kind, the 

 very quantity being altogether undefined, and continually 

 changing from one fpecies of crop, or of flock, to another ; 

 thus placing them in a fituation in which they have hardly 

 any alternariv^, but that of perpetually quarrelling w''.V\ their 

 flocks, or of fubmitting to be cheated by tliem out of their 

 lawful rfvenue. 



Third, With regard to the Farmers or Tenants, I fhould 

 imagine, that thefe are rather more interefted to retain the 

 tithe, than to fee it aboliflied, notwithflanding the outcry 

 they make on the fubjett ; for, if it be true, that the proprie- 

 tor does not receive the full value of his lands, (exclufive of 

 the allowance to the clergy on account of the tithe, which I 

 ihould think is indifputable), it muft follow, that what is thus 

 loft to him, will go into the pockets of his tenants. It is the 

 exadting of the tithe in kind, which I take to be the chief 

 caufe, that, in England, the lands are not only lower rented 

 than in Scotland, in proportion to their real value and pro- 

 duce, but likcwife, as a natural confequence of this, that the 

 Englifh tenantry are. in general, in more eafy circumftances 

 than the Scotifh tenantry are. 



Lajily, So far as regards the Community at large. It has 

 been urged vehemently, that tithe has an effect- to prevent the 

 improvement of wafte lands. If fuch were really the cafe, 

 tithe would, no doubt, in this inilance, be prejudicial to the 

 public intereft. I am, however, inclined to fufpedl, that the 

 clamour on this point is altogether without foundation. Let 

 US fuppofe land, in a wafle or unimproved ftate, feeding 

 gcefe, iheep, or milch cows, (the ufual (lock on an Englifh 

 common), and to produce to the value of 5 s. the acre yearly, 

 of which the titheman draws 6d. leaving 4s. 6d. to the occu- 

 piers of the foil. Now, fuppofing this land improveable, to 

 the extent of yielding yearly 5I. the acre, of which ics. would 

 go for tithe — could the drawmg of this tithe be a rational cx- 

 cufe for not improving this land, when, inflead of 4s. 6d. the 

 acre, the cultivator would have 4I. ics. to hirnfelf ? 



In like manner, I hold it to be a mere excufe for indolence, 

 to fay that lands,, already partially improved, cannot be fur- 



h 1 a ther 



