[ 20I ] 



much their property, as any landed freehold would 

 be, and therefore may ftand juftified in their own 

 fight, for a rigorous coUeftion. We have attempted 

 to prove that a coUedion in kind, or by an annual 

 valuation, is hurtful to agriculture, by operating as 

 a tax upon the farmer proportionally to his merit and 

 abilities^ and that the publick good requires that a 

 general valuation of them fhould take place. We 

 have further fliewn, that this valuation would not 

 leffen the prefent amount of the tithes, although it 

 would prevent them from being a continued and in- 

 creafing burthen upon the poireffors of land; and 

 that a payment in this manner would not only be 

 conducive to the publick good, but alfo promote 

 the welfare and utility of the clergy themfelves. 



With regard to the interefts of that ufeful body, 

 of men, the farmers, we have endeavoured to fliew 

 how much their fituation would be meliorated, and 

 the praftice of agriculture improved, by the propri- 

 etors granting leafes of a proper duration, free of 

 thofe ufelefs reftriftions and covenants that now fub- 

 fifl in agreements for land, whether annual or for 

 a greater number of years. 



Thefe things we humbly fubmit to the confidera^ 

 lion of the Board of Agriculture, and we entertain 

 fanguine hopes, if the improvements we have fug- 

 gefted are fanftioned by their approbation, that this 

 fanftion will have a great influence in corre(fl:ing 

 the abufes we have dcfcribed, 



Survey 



