Star.
London, England, 1817-05-01 00:00:00

. . .
TITHES TN LONDON.

There is at moment considerable hustle, in
some of the Parishes of the- htktropnlis oapioned.
lry the collection of Tythes. &MC of
bents, or Lay IMpropriators Of thilie Parish(' in tffr
City of Londort, which were nut destroyed in the
dreadful fire of 1666, are proceeding to 'filmic the
payment of 2s. 9d. per pound, on the rack rents.—
The inhabitants have petitioned Parliament upon the
subject. The main atgunient against the claim is

the great amount of the incomes raised by it. Thus
they say, that, while one half of a parish; which is
not within the boundaries of the City, pays the Lay-

Impropriator only sel2o per annum, the other halt,
is within them, paid the Last Impropriator

. .
4800 a-year, and now pays his son ,eIOOQ. The#
give the following instance of an increase of tythe-
payments upon one house :

Fs= 1771 to 1804 inclusive, the tenant paid, per An. 12 4 0
(N.B. The Lay impropriator died in 1804.)
From Christmas, 1804, to Midsummer, 18117, ... 9 IR 6
19bm Midsummer, 1887, to Christmas, 1809, 9 4 6
limns Christmas, 1809, to Midsummer, 1810, l3 1 4
From Midsumme., 1510, to the present time,

In another parish they say the Tythes have been
raised from £4OO to £2OOO, and may, if the principle
on which they are collected is established, be raised
to .1111%)(,0 or £BOOO.

This is a subject of great importance, and requires
seric.as investigation. There is something of fallacy
on the face of the whole of this question, which leads,
under the pretext of maintaining rights and property,
to the operation of injustice and the invasion of pro-
perty. Ti.o subject is generally investigated on ab-
stract principles, applied to only one side of the ques-
lion. What a man buys, it is said, he has a tight
to make the most of. If it be answered this is not
strictly true ; for no man has a right to improve his
property at the expense of that of his neighbour ;
the reply is ready—The law has laid down the
rule for hit conduct, and what the law sloes not
trohibii, respecting a man's propetty, ie termitt.—Thus
the haw is made answerable for the injury done to
other people's property for the benefit of an indivi-
dual or a class, and the comFlaint of injustice or op-
pression is evaded Ls) the extortioner saying, it is not
me but the law that robs you.

Ir. despite of this quibble let the fact be examined
on its own merits, and by the rule of equity, and it I
will be rendered apparent that the Laws which are
blamed as the cause of the evil complained of should 'I
be altered to meet the change of circumstances and
the justice of the case.—Take for example the ease
of a Lay Impropriator and his neighbour :
A- buys an estate in the parish of ---. In the
particulars of sale he finds, among other burthens,
Tythes to be paid on the estate of the amount of IS
pre onmats; and on inquiry, he finds that this has
been the amount for many years—and he pays a
price proportioned to the rental after deducting that
and other burthens. On the same day the Tythes of
the same parish are sold s their produce taken on
average of a certain number of years is stated in the
particulars of sale. There are various competitors.
and 8— becomes the buyer, at a price which will
yield him a fair interest on the money paid for the
Purchase.—Further both A and B have been equally
prudent in their bargain—both have secured to them-
selves a return of 7 per cent. for their capital ; and,
to narrow the question, let there be no other inha-
bitant in the parish but the said A and B, and let the
capital sunk by each be £4000,. yielding at 7i per
cent. £3OO per annum.
Can any thing be more equitable than that each of
these purchasers should continue in their relative
situations? But Mr. B finds by some old Statute
that he has been plated in the shoes of the Roman Ca-
thoSe Priesthood—and though that Priesthood has long
been abolished, as such, by the law of the land, he
endeavours to avail himself of the circumstance, at
the expense of his neighbour. He finds that he may,
by the increased capital that has been expended on
improving the estate now occupied by Mr. A, de-
mand seven times the amcunt of tythes hitherto paid
by that estate—seven times the amount of what was
stated as the hurdler: when A bought it—seven time-.
the amount of the aassuity of iesbp, for which B paid
41000. He euforces his demand, and in two years B
takes from A no less a sum, in name of tythes, ;Iwo
fourteen times £3OO, or /24200 ! I
It is high time that this questicn should be settled
on something like equitable principles. There can-
not ')e justice in a system which permits an adventi-
tious circumstance to operate in this manner, taking
from one man the value of a property for which he
paid a fair market price, and putting so much mere
into the pocket of another, and for which he never
really paid any valuable consideration.
The equity of the question cannot be mistaken.—
Why then should Parliament hesitate to apply a re-
medy ? Will the time never arrive in which this law,
operating as a prohibitinn to future improvements,
shall be abolished ? Are the Landholders for ever
to continue such fools as to permit an abuse of which
they have only to will the extirpation, and it will for
ever cease ?.

The new Exchequer bills are to be issued in sums
so low as 4110% and perhaps even ASO each. Tl.l
is sound policy, nor can we see *hy a part of out
circalatin nadir* might not be Exchequer Nit oi
even Antra amount, which might-be made to up,
rats to the lessentng .1 the interest now paid by the
Stall 111 Qat Wit debt.