to surrender, as it were, the inheritance of their posterity, would appear to me an intolerable act of injustice. And it requires more ingenuity than I possess, even to conjecture, in what way so striking a difficulty can be obviated.

I presume that the intention of those, who propose this system of Tithe commutation, is to give an equivalent to the clergyman without injury to the farmer. This must be one of the fundamental principles upon which they proceed. Yet paradoxical as it may seem, it is not difficult to show that they may fail in both these objects-in other words, that both parties may lose by the arrangement.

To place this proposition in a clear point of view, let us imagine that all the minor difficulties are cleared away, that the propositions of the respective proprietors are agreed upon, and a smooth road open to the final execution of the authorised order to the parish, to provide an estate for the incumbent, in lieu of the Tithes, that will produce an equal annual amount. The farmers, who upon questions which concern their immediate interest, are close reasoners, without logic, and clear calculators without arithmetic, will look with a suspicious eye at the exchange they are called upon to make. With their characteristic caution they will view it on all sides. They will compare what they pay now with what they must pay to effect the purchase proposed. In this comparison they will not fail to perceive that many circumstances contribute to render the exchange disadvantageous to them. They will know that if they want money, they must buy it-that on the one hand, they will have a forced sale, and on the other, they have to seek a purchase-that the sellers of cash by commission are not remarkable for their liberality,

or does the necessity of the case increase it. Upon the lowest possible calculation, an estate producing a mere rent of five hundred a year, cannot be purchased for a less amount, than twelve thousand pounds. Such is the simple purchase. The first item, therefore, is a loss of an hundred a year to the parish. The taxes must next be taken into the account, or at least, a part of them, an adequate amount of which, must be provided for in the same way, by a purchase and increased rental. This may or may not be placed to the loss account, according to the circumstances under which the parish is rated. But as a large portion of the clergy, is subject to no parochial assessments, under the conditions upon which their Tithes are rated, in such instances, it will render an equal allowance necessary. Not to reckon however upon any doubtful point, all will admit, that to a farm of this magnitude, very extensive buildings are absolutely necessary. They can in no case be dispensed with, and must either be erected at a large additional expence to the original purchase or a superior rental be provided to prevent dilapidations. In addition to these heavy losses which must be incurred, if the clergyman be awarded an equivalent for his Tithe, when it is recollected, that upon the principle proposed, each farmer will be compelled to sacrifice a portion of his business, it is clearly evident, that the landholders would sustain a serious injury from the adoption of the plan suggested. This good, however, I trust will result from the agitation of this question that the expensive nature of the alternative proposed will render the farmers more satisfied with the present system..

I am aware that in cases where the whole freehold of a pansh belongs to an individual proprietor, the system may

be easily acted upon, as it frequently has been, by appropriating a certain quantity of land in lieu of the Tithes. And so long as the whole parish continue the property of an individual, it is not likely that any practical evil consequences would arise from the adoption of such a system. But after a lapse of time, when, from various causes, the property of the parish shall have been divided into many parts, I can prove from some experience and observation as a clergyman, that the appropriation of an estate in lieu of Tithes is absolutely prejudicial to the cause of religion. With or without the facility of accomplishment, I object to the system, therefore, in toto.

Since, however I have stated that the plan proposed may be disadvantageous to both parties-since I have shown that the fariner may have serious reason to dread its adoption, I will now point out some strong, though not immediately operative objections on the part of the clergy.

Whoever is at all acquainted with agriculture either in theory or practice, must be well aware that the profits of farming, whatever may be the soil, mainly depend on the skilful employment of an adequate capital. The grateful return of land for care and culture is as well known to farmers as the bounty of nature. Without capital and cultivation, the richest soil may be useless to the owner, and with them, the poorest soil productive. And what are the best means, or rather what is the only motive that will induce a farmer to embark his capital in the land he uses, or exert his best efforts to obtain from it all that it is capable of yielding? to this I answer-certainty of possession. Without which no man will farm prospectively,

and unless he does, no man will farm advantageously. In this point of view, how stands the appropriated estate of the beneficed clergyman? it is a life estate, and a life estate of the worst possible kind. The present possessor can have no tie or motive to guard and preserve the interest of his successor the tenant can have no assurance and little hope, that he shall reap the fruits of a provident expence, or industry, since the next incumbent must necessarily be an unknown stranger. Thus the landlord has no sympathy, or interest, in the welfare of his successor-the tenant is liable, at six months' notice on the death of the incumbent, to be deprived of his farm. An estate so circumstanced, would probably, after a short tenure, be in a continual state of impoverishment or exhaustion, and when (as the farmers term it) run out, it would necessarily require a great expenditure to restore its vital spirit. Consequently, the annual value would soon be considerably reduced, and it is not improbable, that after a few years, in most instances, these life estates, from this and other causes, would not be worth more than two thirds of their original estimate.

Another part of the system proposed is, that if an adjoining estate cannot be conveniently procured, a distant one, in any part of England, is to be purchased. The loss and inconvenience, the liability to injury from neglect, or the expence of stewardship are so obviously objectionable, that even those clergymen who might wish to have an estate in their own neighbourhood, would, I think, be averse to this part of the plan.

In the appropriation of an adjoining estate which is to be formed by land contributions from the respective pro

prietors and farmers, it will be readily admitted, I conceive, that the clergyman may lose, but cannot possibly gain. I will grant that the most sagacious commissioners shall be selected and authorized by parliament to delineate and apportion the Church estate. Yet, I am confident, that no general knowledge of land, or sagacity in arranging the common allotments, to forin one estate, can render them equal to the combined farmers of any parish, in treating and bargaining for land with which they are acquainted, from long experience. I trust therefore I have made out, a less strong, yet a satisfactory, case to prove that it is not the interest of the clergyman, no more than of the farmer, to substitute a real estate for the annual income of the Tithes.

Let us now try the question upon more general grounds. In the first place, a solid objection to the substitution of estates for Tithes, arises from the consideration that the affairs of mankind are subject to continual vicissitudes and changes. Human institutions all carry within themselves the seeds of decay. Governments and empires rise and fall. And in their revolutions we observe, that whole provinces once florishing and well peopled, frequently exhibit the melancholy scene of a desolate and uninhabited desert. Our country cannot expect to escape the general doom. In the course of a century or two, many parts of it, now cultivated with all the beauty of a garden, inay become a barren waste. And thus Churches and congregations may still continue to exist in one part of the kingdom, long after the estate appropriated to the support of the clergyman, in another, had totally fallen to decay. The Tithe law is exposed to no such danger. And here, I cannot but remark with what persistive wisdom and