Take the crop on a rich field of loam or clay at 5 quarters per acre on an average, inde 5 qrs. Q bush. Deduct seed, on an ave rage of grains, 4 bush.
Corn for working stock, 6 Ditto for farm servants, 3 Ditto for incidental ex penses, such as harvest work, tear and wear, &c. 4 2 I which leaves a disposable balance of two quarters seven bushels per acre, as a fund from which tythe can be paid. But as the whole crop is tythable, the amount thereof is four bushels, or nearly 17 per cent. on the disposable produce.
Take the crop on thin clay or moorish soil, at three quarters on an average, rode S qrs.
Deduct seed, 4 bush.
Horse corn, 6 Farm servants, 3 Incidents, 3 2 which leaves a disposable balance of one quarter per acre, as a fund, from which tythe can be paid. The tythe of three quarters is two bushels two pecks, or thereby, or nearly 32 per cent. on the disposable produce ; though, in the last case, the incidental expenses are stated at one bushel per acre less than in the other, which, where good management is practised, may be a questionable circumstance.
Thus it appears, that the possessor of a good soil, who raises five quarters per acre, pays tythe, when it is collected in kind, at the rate of 17 per cent. of the grain remaining on hand, after the expenses of working the same are defrayed ; while the possessor of inferior soils, who raises three quarters per acre, pays at the rate of 32 per cent. though the tax, at first sight, is precisely the same in both cases. After this statement, which, it is presumed, as a general illustration, will not be found far from the truth, can it excite surprise, that waste lands, and inferior soils, remain unimproved among our southernneighbours ? We might now show in what respect tythes prevei.1 the cultivation of waste lands, were we nut filar sensible . that few people are so ignorant as to deny tile truth ui this proposition. Indeed, to attack tythes merely upon account of their consequences, is little better than attach. ing a man of straw, who is incapable of making th slightest defence. It is not concerning their utility or expediency that economists dispuu Upon this point. almost every one is agreed, who has investigated the subject. The difference, which prevails, arises entirely from the (hi culty of making a just arrangement, where so many interests arc concerned. If tythes, however, prevent the improvement or the country, or, in ()ther words, occasion the national stock to be less than it would be if they ceased to operate, every friend to his country will join in declaring, that a remedy ought to be sought after ; nay, even if a strong measure is neces sary to remove such an extensive evil, that it is an in cumbent duty upon the government of the country to put such in execution.
After having fully conceded the right of impropriators. it cannot be supposed, that, in proposing a commutation of tythes, we arc in the smallest mzumer hostile to their interest. The holders are entitled to a full compensa tion, if the tax were to be abolished ; and it is for their real interest, that an adjustment should be made. The unproductive state of such an extensive portion of the national property does not serve them ; nor is it practi cable to collect the full value of tythes, Were laws mul. tiplied ad iqfinitum.
Perhaps it is the difficulty, not the inexpediency, of a commutation, which has hitherto prevented such a salu tary measure from being enacted. It has been proposed to value all the tythes presently paid, and to make that valuation the rule of payment in all time coming. But to this it is objected, that no regard is thus paid to the gradual depreciation of money, and consequently that the real value of the payment might be annually dimin ished. The plan established in Scotland has been also recommended ; but though this would effectually re move the evil, yet, as the right of impropriators is now better secured than in Charles I.'s days, it is evident, that such a plan stands little chance of being adopted. Again, a corn rent has been proposed by several people ; and by others, that a certain part of all tythable land should be set apart, instead of an annual payment. To both these modes of adjustment, strong, and in 01 r opinion, valid objections may be offered. Corn is but an awkward article for clergymen to deal in, and, at any rate, such a mode of payment could not apply to pas. tune and waste land. Besides, it would open a door for constant discussions about the quality of the article delivered. The other mode of adjustment, viz. giving land instead of tythe, would, so far as the clergy are concerned, be still worse in a national view. It would put such a quantity of land in a state of mortmain, as might increase the evil which the commutation meant to correct.
From these considerations, it appears, that no method can be devised for regulating tythcs sufficient to remove the evils attendant upon the present system, and secure so effectually the interest of all parties, as a general law fixing a payment in money, according to the rentals of the land from which tythes are exigible. Such a plan, carried into execution, would do away the com plaint, that tythes obstruct improvement. It would allow the proprietor to receive the full value of his company