[ I9S ] 



the farmer, than the fura agreed upon by him in 

 the leafe to be paid. This we will endeavour now 

 to fubftantiate. 



The rent paid tb the landlord is a known definite 

 fum, which neither falls nor increafes, whatever crops 

 are raifed by the farmer. If by good cultivation, or 

 ftrength of manure, he raifes ever fo luxuriant a 

 crop, he only pays the fame rent to the landlord 

 as if the ground had produced an inferior one; there- 

 fore the farmer, fo far as he is concerned with the 

 landlord, receives the fruits of his fuperior manage- 

 ment. But with regard to the tithe-holder, the cafe 

 is very different; he comes before harvells, iiifpe(^s 

 the fields, and finding them carrying rich crops, in- 

 creafes the rate of the tithe accordingly. 



Inftead of paying 5s. per acre, as perhaps he ufcd 

 to do, he is now obliged to pay 10s. or 12s. merely 

 becaufe he has managed his land in a manner fupe- 

 rior to his neighbours. The cafe is exa(flly in point, 

 if we fuppofe the landlord's rent were to be fixed by 

 the goodnefs of the crops: the fatal confequences 

 of which need no illuftration. But whatever detri- 

 ment this might occafion to improvements, it will 

 not be a bit heavier than the other. The landlord 

 has (reafonably) as good a right to a fliare of the 

 extraordinary cultivation, manure, induilry, merit, 

 and alDilities of the farmer, bellowed upon the fields 

 he cultivates, as the tithe-holder can poihbly claim. 



IBID. 



