•41 



founder" is still carried oat, if not verbally, at least in close 

 accordance with the "cypres" doctrine; bat in the case of the 

 lay impropriators the original purpose of the tithe is -wholly 

 disregarded. This difference in origin and in application is not 

 nrged in defence of anti-tithe agitation. On every existing 

 principle of the law of property tithe rent-charges seem to me 

 inviolable. Bat I only insist upon the difference in order to 

 explain the distinction drawn between tithes in the hands of the 

 clergy and tithes in the hands of laymen. 



