1797) 
‘we not then be approaching this impor- 
tant, this principal point, in proportion 
as we cultivated our waffe lands ? Have 
we not immenfe tracts of thefe waltes*, 
which might be made highly productive 
by the refpective proprietors, if they 
could obtain permiffion ? 
The moft effentia!l fervice the Board 
could render to the country, would be to 
puth forward as muchas poffible, “ the 
general biil for the enclofure of com- 
mons ;” and alfo of open town-fields, 
which are a very great impediment to 
good hufbandry.. Such a bill would in- 
deed be * incalculably beneficial’ and 
acceptable : and although I. H. rightly 
fuppofes, that many obftacles would pre- 
fent themfelves, by reafon of ‘* the va- 
‘rious jarring interefts’’ which would 
arife, yet zeal, perfeverance, and ftrid&t 
impartiality, would ealily f{armount them 
—efpecially if “ the general voice of the 
nation calls’ for this neceflary improve- 
ment. 
That the general voice of the nation 
(particularly of the yeomanry and leffer 
freeholders) does make this call, is be- 
yond all doubt. Why the call is not at- 
tended to, 1. H. in part, accounts for, and 
certainly his reafcns have their weight. 
But yet there is a number of wrongheads 
who whifper, that perhaps the bill is 
poftponed, not only for the above-men- 
tioned reafons, but alfo becaufe it would 
leffen the quantity of game, interrupt 
the fons of Nimrod, and deprive fome 
profeffional men, or men in a certain 
fubordinate ftation, of part of their emo- 
luments ! 
lf, however, the freeholders of this 
country are yet to obtain private local 
enclofure bills, according to the prefent 
expenfive mode, they would do well to’ 
_ confult the excellent obfervations of Mr. 
A. Young (North Tour, vol. i. p. 252) 
upon the glaring defects of many fuch 
bills, previoufly to their figning a peti- 
tion for the purpofe, or employing a 
folicitor. Your's, 
A PRACTICAL FARMER. 
Doncafter, Feb. 2, 1797. 

* By the report of Mefirs. Rennie, Brown, 
and Shirreff, who were employed by the Board 
of Agriculture, in the year 1704, to examine 
into the ftate of hutbandry in Yorkthire, it ap- 
pears, that in the North and Weft ridings of 
that county, there are no lefs than 265,000 
acres of wafte land, capable of cultivation.—— 
‘The enclofing of this vait traét, would indeed 
* bein a shore time socatculably beneficial.” 
Valudtion of Tythes impracticable. 
til 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Stet 
(THE magnitude and boldnefs of the 
- plan propofed in your valuable Sup- 
plementary Number, for a total abolition of 
tythes, excited my curiofity and furprize, 
but as.on an attentive examination of it, 
Iam by no means fatistted either of its 
juftice or its practicability ; 1 truft to 
your ufual impartiality for an admiflion 
of the following remarks : 
The author of the eflay obferves, that 
“‘ there is no defcription [of tythes] but 
what is capable of va/vation : and what- 
ever may be fairly vulved, may be taily 
bought, and annihilated for ever.”’ 
Now I am fo far from agreeing with 
this gentleman, that any defcription of 
tythes can be fairly valued, that I fhall 
not fcruple to deny that they can be 
valued at all. The prefent poffeffors are 
only tenants for life, and though the 
valuation may be juft and advantageous 
for them, it will not be fo for their fuc- 
ceffors, ef{pecially at fome diftant period, 
when land and every thing elfe fhall rife 
far above the prefent ftandard. Let us 
fuppofe, for inftance, that the tythes had 
been bought up, on the prefent plan, at 
the beginning of the Reformation, what 
would be the coydition of the clergy 
now ? and fhould we not juftly have had 
reafon to complain of the arbitrary aét of 
the rulers of that period, and the tame 
indifference of the clerical body, who 
could fo fhamefully fell their right for 
a prefent advantage ? Or had this pro- 
ject taken place no farther back than 
the latter end of the preceding century, 
I fear the minifterial provifion at the 
preient moment would have been of a 
forry nature, and far more pitiable than 
the condition of the poor curates, which 
has been fo often and fo pathetically 
defcribed. 
We may call our valuation (made by 
con{cientious and fagacious men, fworn 
to make ajuit account) farrand beneficral, 
and it may be fo, according to the pre- 
fent price of land, and the neceifary ar- 
ticles of life; but the queftion is, whe- 
ther the prefent ftandard is the higheft 
to which thofe articies can poilibly go? 
If not, our valuation cannot be fusr, and 
thofe who come after us, will have juft 
reafons to execrate our conduét. They 
will have jaf reafox to Complain, becaut¢ 
we have fold that which does not belong 
tous. Itisthe property, not of a body 
of men, but of an inftitution, and, there- 
fore, if any of the truftees fhall alienate 
; that 

