C 3x I

The conſequences of thirlage to mills could not.be fore- ſeen at the period when it firſt took place; and“therefore tlie rigorous interpretation of the laws reſpedting it ſeems ts be now improper. At that time when the farmer cultivated 6 more grain but what he made into meal, to ſerve his own fa- mily, or to diſpoſe of among his neighbours, it was no great hardſhip to be obliged to manufadtüre it at one mill in pre ference to another. But in the preſent ſtate of things, when the farmer ſells great quantities of grain for exportation, ot to brewers and diſtillers, to make him paymulture, for this part of the produce of his land, to a mill from which he receives Ho advantage, is ſurely a grievance which ought to be redreſ- ſed: and as no multure for grain ſold to corn merchants or brewers was demanded for many years after thirlage bonds were in uſe, it is evident, that it was not in the view of the contracting parties when firſt granted.

Pigeon-houfes.--This county, though extremely ſmall, is well ſtocked with pigeon-houſes; a nuiſance of which agricul- turiſts have juſt cauſe to complain. Did the proprietors themſelves farm the lands in the neighbourhood of theſe neſts of worſe than vermin, and all the lands to which theſe des vouring harpies had acceſs, the loſs, even although it is al» ways conſiderable, would not be ſo great a burden to the community. This indeed was in general the caſe when pi- geon-houſes were at firſt ere&ed; but now when they are forcibly billeted on tenants, to devour their ſubſtance, the grievance is intolerable. But the proprietors have got a right to them by occupaney, or uſe and wont z and therefore uſe and wont eſlabliſhes an evil, and forbids it to be removed.

G 2 Happily tenant at nearly its former rent. The writer of this note knoyws that the mill

is now better'employed than formerly; and that the tenant finds his fituation happier without, than with, a reſtridtive thirlage.