Bang laughed outright, and I could not help making a hole in my manners also, even prepared as I was for my jest by my sable crony Pegtop.

The very coachman of the stuhl wagen, after conversing a moment with his master, returned to his team, tied the legs of the poor creatures as they stood, and then with a sharp knife cut their jugular veins through and through on the right side, having previously reined them up sharp to the left, so that, before starting, we could see three of the team, which consisted of four superb bays when we started, level with the soil and dead; the near wheeler only holding out on his forelegs.

"We shoved off at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and after having twice been driven into creeks on the Holstein shore by bad weather, we arrived about two next morning safely on board the Torch, which immediately got under weigh for England. After my story had been told to the Captain, I left my preserver and his sisters in his hands, and I need scarcely say that they had as hearty a welcome as the worthy old soul could give them, and dived into the midshipman's birth for a morsel of comfort, where, in a twinkling, I was far into the secrets of a pork pie."

"A pork pie!" said Aaron Bang. "A pork pie!" said Paul Gelid. "Why do you know," said Mr Wagtail" I-why, I never in all my life saw a pork pie."

My dear Pepperpot," chimed in Gelid, 66 we both forget. Don't you remember the day we dined with the Admiral at the Pen, in July last ?"

"No," said Wagtail," I totally forget it." Bang, I saw, was all this while chuckling to himself" I absolutely forget it altogether."

"Bless me," said Gelid, "don't you remember the beautiful calipeever we had that day ?"

Really I do not," said Pepperpot, "I have had so many good feeds there."

Aaron looked at me with one of his quizzical grins; "Cringle, my darling, do you keep these Logs still ?"

"I do, my dear sir, invariably."

What," "struck in little Wagtail, "the deuce, for instance, shall I, and Paul, and Aaron there, all be embalmed or preserved" ("Say pickled," quoth the latter)" in these said logs of yours?" This was too absurd, and I could not answer my allies for laughing. Gelid had been swaying himself backwards and forwards, half asleep, on the hind legs of his chair all this while, puffing away at a cigar.

"Ah!" said he half asleep, and but partly overhearing what was going on; " Ah, Tom, my dear, you don't say that we shall all be handed down to our poster"-a long yawn— "to our poster"-another yawnwhen Bang, watching his opportunity as he sat opposite, gently touched one of the fore-legs of the balanced chair with his toe, while he finished Gelid's sentence by interjecting, 'iors,' as the Conch fell back and floundered over on his stern. His tormentor drawling out in wicked mimicry

"Yes, dear Gelid, so sure as you have been landed down on your posteriors now, ah, you shall be handed down to your posterity hereafter, by that pestilent little scamp Cringle. Ah, Tom, I know you-Paul, Paul, it will be paulo post futurum, with you, my lad."

Here we were interrupted by my steward's entering with his tallow face. "Dinner on the table, sir." We adjourned accordingly.

"We shall take the balance of

the log to-morrow, Tom, eh ?" said el Señor Bang.

TITHES-are they not a grievous impost-are they not a tax upon industry-paid by the consumer? Irish tithes are they not peculiarly odious and oppressive, superadding to all the other objections to which they are liable, this chief one, that people of one denomination are compelled to pay the religious instructors of those of another? These are questions much agitated at the present day; and to the consideration of which we have resolved to devote a few pages.

The view which we propose to take will be strictly practical. We will, therefore, consider tithes not as they were, but as they are; not as they have reference to the rights of the clergy "en posse," but to the exercise of those rights" in actu;" our object being to see how the present system actually works, and to endeavour, with as much fairness as possible, to ascertain the value of the objections that have been alleged against it.

In the first place, it is to be observed, that a very considerable portion of the land of this country is not subject to tithe. We believe about one-third, at least, may be so reckoned. But the amount of this exemption is usually measured by the increase in the rent of such land, over and above the rent of land not so exempted. Now, that the tenant can be benefited by a mere transfer to the landlord of proceeds which would otherwise belong to the clergyman, is more, we think, than the new doc trines of political economy have as yet made plain to the common sense of mankind. But of this anon.

It is, in the next place, to be considered, that by law all lands for the first time brought into cultivation, are exempt from tithes for seven years: a provision which would seem well calculated to render that possible case, which is such a favourite with our modern illuminees, namely, that land which cannot pay a rent, may yet be subjected to tithe, a perfect nonentity in practice.

The case which we are to consider, therefore, is simply this, that land which has been at least seven

years under cultivation, is liable to the subtraction of a tenth of its produce, which goes into the granary of the clergyman, or is by him commuted for money. Now, in considering whether this is, or is not, a grievance, the first question that occurs is, does such land, or does it not, pay a rent? For, if it does, it is quite clear that its produce is more than sufficient to pay the wages of labour and the profits of stock; and tithe can only be a grievance when, by a collusion between landlord and tenant, a rent is exacted and agreed to, which encroaches on the rights of the clerical proprietor. In that case, he must either forego his just demand, or enforce it by compelling the tenant to pay him his dues out of the fund destined to the replacing of his capital. For instance, suppose the produce of the land represented by

If we represent the wages of
labour and the profits of
stock by

There will remain, after these
are deducted,
Now the full tithe of the gross
produce will be

So that here will remain to
the cultivator, after tithe is
paid,

40

15

30

4

26

Unless, therefore, the produce represented by this last number be insufficient to remunerate the labour and capital employed by rearing it, it is clear that tithe can be no grievance to the farmer. And if it be insufficient, why should the labour and capital be so employed? If the former were compelled to cultivate under adverse circumstances, he might complain. But when he chooses to do so, either his conduct is unwise, or his complaint is unfounded; and, in neither case, can he or ought he, to look for redress from the legislature. Should he, however, say, that he would be very well satisfied with the return indicated by the number 26, but that a large deduction must be made from that in the shape of rent, the answer is ob

vious, as an honest man, he should not agree to pay a rent which should leave him unable to liquidate a claim that was anterior to such an obligation. Now, in point of fact, is any land subject to tithe, which either does not, or might not yield a rent? We believe not. We believe, that in the United Empire none such could be truly specified. And, if this be so, is it not clear to demonstration, that tithe is not considered, either by landlords or tenants, an impost which overburdens the land? Since, if they did so consider it, they could not demand, or submit, to a rent, without acting, at the same time, with cruelty, impolicy, and injustice.

When a farmer is about to make an offer for land, he considers the various claims to which it is subject, and which must be satisfied before it can make him any return; and he either will not, or ought not, to make any offer which does not leave him a profit in the concern, after all previous charges have been paid. Now, if it do leave him this profit, he may be glad of his bargain; and, if it do not, he has no one to blame but himself.

But the proprietor, he who holds the land in fee, is not he a sufferer by the exaction of tithes ? Certainly not. He is possessed of the land either by grant or purchase. If by the former, tithe was expressly reserved; so that THAT portion of the produce never was his. If by the latter, the amount of tithe was taken into account in estimating the value of the land, and the purchase-money was only an equivalent for its value diminished by that amount, so that in neither case can the proprietor be said to be aggrieved.

If, indeed, a tyrannical government were to force upon an honest and patriotic gentleman a property of three or four thousand a-year, upon condition of his paying tithes, we think he would have much reason to complain. But when he accepts the grant gladly upon such conditions, we rather think it a little unreasonable in his successors, whose rights are all derived from him, to set up any claim to hold the land without complying with these conditions. If they are discontented with the conditions, let them relin

quish the land. But, if they resolve to hold the land, let them adhere to the conditions. These are no harder now than they were at first. And the tenants of any of these proprietors might, with as much colour of justice, withhold from them their rents, as they withhold from the ministers of religion the funds allocated for their maintenance, and secured to them by the very instruments by which the right of exacting these rents was created.

It should, then, be constantly held in mind, that tithe is a lien upon land which precedes rent; which was created before rent was paid; for which a due allowance was made in the various arrangements between landlord and tenant; and which, therefore, without any hardship, may, and by common equity ought to be satisfied, before any rent should be exacted.

It will, however, be said, that, although neither landlords nor tenants have reason to complain of tithes, the public at large may have reason so to complain; in as much as tithes are paid by the consumer. This is the new form which the question has assumed, and which has been given to it by the late David Ricardo. It deserves, and it shall receive an attentive consideration.

Ricardo's notion respecting tithes is a kind of corollary deduced from his theory of rent. To understand the former, therefore, it will be necessary to state the latter.

The cause of rent he asserts to be the varying fertility of different soils. And rent itself he defines to be the difference between the produce of the same amount of capital, 'when employed upon inferior and superior land. It will, he says, be the same thing to a cultivator to invest a smaller capital in the cultivation of productive ground, and pay a certain rent, as to invest a larger capital in the cultivation of ground for which he may pay no rent, but which is less productive.

If Ricardo had contented himself with stating this as a fact, without proceeding to assign it as a cause, or to make it the foundation of a theory, it would be all very well. It might even serve to illustrate the law according to which rent varies. But it is sur

prising, that it should have escaped his penetration, that rent would exist if there was no difference in the fertility of land, provided only its extent was limited: and that it is that, as compared with the wants of mankind, and not its varying fertility, that is the cause of rent, which, although it may be in many instances measured, yet is never occasioned by that difference of productiveness to which by him it is solely attributed. But upon this subject we cannot do better than lay before the reader the clear and conclusive observations of Colonel Thomson. In his tract, entitled, "The True Theory of Rent," he thus writes-" In this account, the matters of fact stated in the outset are entirely and absolutely true. The fallacy lies in assuming to be the cause, what in reality is only a consequence. Proof spirit sells for a certain price, and more diluted spirits sell for inferior prices till they come to that which is worth no more than water; therefore, the reason why proof spirit sells for a high price is, that there are weaker spirits which are selling for a lower; and if there had happened to have been no weaker spirits, the proof spirit would not have sold at all. This is a specimen of the kind of fallacy involved. There is precisely the same nullity of proof, that what is quite true with respect to the concomitant circumstances when they happen to exist, is therefore the essential and inseparable cause, without which the principal phenomenon could not have taken place. When it happens, or even if it always hap pens, that there exist soils of various degrees of productiveness down to that which does no more than replace the expense of cultivation with the necessary profit, and that men are moreover acquainted with the art of forcing increased crops, by the application of more capital-all that is stated with respect to the rent being equal to the difference between the highest and the lowest returns, is as necessarily and undeniably true as any thing that has been stated with respect to proof spirit. But all this is no manner of evidence that these circumstances are the causes of the principal phenomenon, and that it could not have existed without them,-in one case more than in the

other. In both cases this kind of conclusion is a pure fallacy, a simple non causa pro causa. On the truth or falsehood of this hang the merits of the whole of what is called the Ricardo Theory of Rent, and the consequences derived from it."

In point of fact, the inferior soils, instead of being the cause why rent increases, are rather causes why it is limited in its amount. The only effect of their non-existence in any given case would be, to cause the rent of the superior qualities of land to be higher. They are brought into cultivation for the purpose of reducing the monopoly price, which would be obtained by the cultivation of better land, if there were no other competitors in the market.

"The value of corn," says Ricardo, "is regulated by the quantity of labour bestowed on its produc tion on that quality of land, or with that portion of capital which pays no rent.' Principles of Political Economy.-P. 62.

"The value of corn," observes Colonel Thomson, "is not regulated by this; but does itself regulate the quality of land and the portion of capital, that can be brought into action with a profit. The inverted proposition, as given above, amounts to saying, that the price of corn is regulated by the cost for which it can be produced, on the best quality of land, or with the least portion of capital that can be brought into activity, with a living profit at the going price; or, in other words, that the price is regulated by the price, which is reasoning in a circle."

"Again," Ricardo says, "nothing is more common than to hear of the advantages which the land possesses over every other source of useful produce, on account of the surplus which it yields in the form of rent. Yet when the land is most abundant, most productive, and most fertile, it yields no rent; and it is only when its powers decay, and less is yielded in return for, labour, that a share of the original produce of the more fertile portion is set apart for rent."

Upon this, Colonel Thomson remarks.-"Among the properties here assigned as the causes of no rent, the property of abundance, or of unappropriated land not having begun to be scarce, is the only effective one.

The rise in the price of agricultural produce, at one and the same time raises rent, and makes it practicable to cultivate land less fertile, or whose powers have been decayed. But there is no foundation for the inverted proposition, that it is only when the powers of land decay, that there will be rent. There would be rent though there was no such thing as decayed or inferior land within the circle to which a given community is limited for its supply, as soon as the demand for corn began to press against the limits of the produce. The fact of there being either decayed or inferior land at all, is itself but an accident, which might have been or might not have been, like the fact of there being weak or inferior spirits; and has no more to do with the general cause of rent, than the fact of there being weak spirits has to do with the general fact of spirits selling for a price. If any man were to assert that proof spirits sold for a high price, because there were weaker spirits that were selling for a lower, it would be clear that the whole was a fallacy, cultivated for the sake of the inference. The case of rent is of the same kind; and the false inference, for the sake of which the fallacy is cultivated, is that tithes fall on the consumer."

We have chosen to state the ques tion, not as it may be said to exist between churchmen and economists, but between different classes of the economists themselves. Colonel Thomson is no bigot. He cannot be reckoned amongst the friends of the Church as a religious establishment. On many, and on vital questions, the Destructives claim him as their own. But he is a well-informed gentleman, whose time in the University was not thrown away; and the labour which he bestowed on the severer sciences has so disciplined his mind and sharpened his intellect, that he sees at a glance the weak points in the positions of his less lettered brethren, whose reasonings are as inaccurate as their principles are dangerous.

This able logician has stated the matter at issue with a candour that commands respect, and a clearness that renders comment unnecessary. Land is cultivated only.because the cultivation of it is profitable; such

cultivation is only profitable because of the existence of a class of persons who are willing to give the cultivators a remunerating price; in proportion as demand thus presses upon supply, in the same proportion will it be profitable to cultivate land upon which, in order to produce the same returns, more of capital and of labour must be expended. But it is the previous willingness to give the price, which in every case causes the cultivation of the land; not the cultivation of the land which induces a necessity of giving the price. In other words, it is the market that governs the farmer, not the farmer the market.

It is true that the expenses of cultivation will determine, in one direction, the price for which corn will be sold; that is, it will determine its lowest price, which may rise, however, " to an extent only limited by the circumstances of the particular case, whenever the competition increases the price faster than the outlay the produce."-True Theory of Rent, p. 17.

Supposing all land to be subject to tithe, (which is not the case universally,) and supposing all land for the first time brought into cultivation subject to tithe, (which is not the case at all,) upon these suppositions, the produce of nine-tenths of the land must be sufficient to remunerate the cultivators, before the whole of it can be brought into cultivation; and therefore the consumers must pay the tithe, provided the tithe is the only residuum, after the expenses of cultivation have been paid. For, in this case, there can be no rent; the tithe, the profits of stock, and the wages of labour, absorbing the whole of the treasure. Or, if the tithe be considered a rent, as in truth it is, here is a case in which rent must be paid by the consumer. But, even in this extreme case, it is to be observed, that it is the willingness of the consumers to pay the tax which induces the growers to cultivate, not a disposition on the part of the growers to cultivate, which compels the consumers to pay the tax.

Viewing the matter in this light, (which the reader will be good enough to hold in mind is not the practical view of the question,) economists have represented tithe as