clared my intention of going in detail into the discussion of the evidence, article by article, they said "Remember, however, there was a mistake about the wood." This was suggested to me by noble lords whose sentiments I knew to be in general the same with mine upon every part of this business, as the single mistake, but as a mistake which must be admitted. My Lords, it gave me great satisfaction to perceive, by casting my eye over Miss Raye's account, that the mistake, whatever it might be, was an innocent mistake,-that it must be mere mistake, not design, my Lords; for this reason, that this wood was charged on both sides of the account, and made no difference at all in striking the balance. The wood was reckoned in the account of the produce of 1790; but it was also reckoned as a distinct article of the future produce of the living, under the enclosure, if the

bill should pass: It swelled the account of the amount of tithes; but it equally swells the account of the produce of the living, if the commutation should take place. The allotment of land is not to cover the tithe of wood; and the tithe of wood is very fairly charged as a distinct article of future produce. If the charge of this tithe-wood is a mistake on one side, it is equally a mistake on the other: If you strike it out here, you must strike it out there; and the difference between the amount of the year 1790 and the future produce of the living under the commutation, will, in spite of this supposed mistake, remain what the account makes it. I confess, I was much satisfied to find the supposed mistake so innocent; still I wished to discover upon what ground of evidence a mistake had been so generally admitted. Yesterday morning, my Lords,

at an early hour, I came down to this House; I applied to the Clerk for his minutes of our proceedings; and in his room, I sat. me down to study the depositions of the stewards of the woods in his minutes.

I presently perceived that the only woods which fell in 1790 were a part of Lord Sondes's and a part of Mr Hatton's; so that the 431. 3s., if there was no mistake, must all be accounted for from the tithes of those woods. Now, John Walker, the steward of Lord Sondes's woods, confessed in his evidence that he paid Mr Raye in money, for the tithe of Lord Sondes's fall in 1790, the sum of 267. 14s. 3d.: He deposed, that the money was paid in January 1791. Is this the mistake? was the receipt of 1791 charged to the account of 1790?—No such thing, my Lords; the witness was distinct and candid: He said the money was paid in January 1791; but

he had said before that the fall was made in 1790. Indeed the thing speaks for itself: If the money was paid so early in the year 1791 as the month of January, the fall must have been in the preceding year. The money therefore, though not paid till 1791, is justly put to the account of the year 1790, in which the tithe accrued. Now for the tithe of Mr Hatton's fall in the year 1790. The steward of Mr Hatton's woods, Mr Pywell (not the famous measurer of turnip-grounds, but another Mr Pywell), deposes that the tithe of Mr Hatton's wood was not sold to Mr Hatton, but taken in kind by the rector, and carried off. Mr Pywell therefore could give no account of what the rector might make of this tithe, otherwise than by informing your Lordships of the value of Mr Hatton's nine tenths, by which the value of the rector's single tenth might be

estimated. He deposed, that the value of Mr Hatton's nine tenths was 1277. The ninth part of this is 147. 2s. 2d.; which must have been the value of the rector's tenth, according to Pywell's estimate. Now, will some noble lord assist me; it is difficult to compute and speak at the same time. (Lord Spencer and the Bishop of Bangor each took up a pen.) My Lords, to 261. 14s. 3d., the price paid to the rector for Lord Sondes's fall, add 147. 2s. 2d., the value of the tithe of Mr Hatton's fall, what is the sum? (Lord Spencer and the Bishop of Bangor both answered 40%. 16s. 5d.) Very well, my Lords, of Miss Raye's 431. 3s. we have actually accounted for 407. 16s. 5d.; the difference is 21. 6s. 7d.,—which is the utmost amount of her mistake, if any mistake has been committed. My Lords, I find by the deposition of Daniel York, that there was a small fall of Lord Upper Os