« AnteriorContinuar »
the right of ejectment, in the Sovereign, does not imply a right of resumption, or affect the title of the present church. It is very true, that as the Crown is the source from which all property emapates, so it is the centre to which all property tends. But, except in the two cases of extinction and forfeiture, this tendency is neutralized by the antagonist powers of the law. The Crown, when it parts with property, to a family or a corporation, gives away a title as valid as it possessed. It has not, therefore, a right of resumption. It cannot re-possess itself of the lands, which, in the period so often mentioned, it conferred upon the Scotch settlers in the north, or the English soldiers in the south ; neither can it re-enter on the property of the church.
“ But the law is fertile in analogies to my purpose ..... When Henry the Second signed the Acts of the Synod of Cashel, and thereby endowed the Church, the Crown relinquished the right of property, and assumed the right of visitation. As the forms of the constitution became more popular, and the importance of a religious establishment was more generally felt to be a national concern, the visitorial authority was communicated to the Parliament: that which at first belonged to the Sovereign alone, was vested in the King, Lords, and Commons, in the same fulness, and with the same limitations. In virtue of this right, the Crown, (or the State, as the case may be,) made such alterations as, in its wisdom, it deemed expedient; it deprived recusant members, and substituted others, according to the usual forms of incorporation. In this manner, the establishment preserved its constitutional identity, with those privileges and emoluments which that identity implies.
“ I come now to consider the objections of J. K. L. that the only end, whlch the law had, or ought to have had, in view when it gave the possessions of the Irish Church to the Pro. testant Clergy,' was that the mass of the people might become Protestants; that this end has not been and cannot be, attained ; and that therefore, by the laws of nature and of God,' the state is bound to revoke its grant.
." It is not easy, my Lord, to determine what we shall most ade mire in this reasoning--the narrow-mindedness of the bigot, the abstraction of the schoolman, or the flippant arrogance of the modern demagogue.
The substance of it is taken from Mr. O'Driscol's Essay on Tithe; yet the Association may not have been wrong in voting him an original--there is a felicity in his manner, which almost appropriates every thing he seizes :
Contactuque omnia fædat Immundo, tum vox tetrum dira inter odorem.' " I have not, my Lord, sufficient sagacity, to penetrate into the secret thoughts of princes and their cabinets: on such subjects, I
probably as ignorant as J. K. L. himself. But without searching so deeply, it is easy to refute every part of this impudent passage:
** In the first place it may be proved, that the end which he assighs, was not the only, or even the principal end, proposed by the
goverment, or pursued by the Church. I have already mentioned, that one important end was attained, in the removal of a disaffected priesthood. Such was the Papal priesthood of former times, and with former times only, is the argument concerned.-But to re, turn. The Church prescribes to its ministers no missionary duties
and it would have prescribed them, had the state commanded, Nor would an express command have been necessary; by the or, dinary influence of the Crown, a missionary character might easily have been given to the clergy. ... It is probable, indeed, that a missionary zeal will now spread among our ministry, Popery bas thrown open her ancient armouries, and drawn forth the poisoned weapons of her warfare. Protestantism will be no less vigilanț on her side---J. K. L. and his associates may have reason to repent their insolent aggressions, “ But if this was not the only end of government, J. K.
says that it ought to have been."
Having shewn Dr. Doyle's errors on this subject, and observed
on the gross inconsistency of the charges brought against the Established Church in Ireland, on account of her wealth, Declan adds,
41:J. K. L. is zealous for the restoration of apostolical poverty, and, in the vehemence of his zeal, he urges the government to a holy war upon the possessions of the Church. What evidence can he adduce, that his own order has adopted the poverty of the apostles? How will be explain away the commandment of his Church?-Is not that Church looking wistfully after her ancient grandeur? Is she not now, in her comparative adversity, receiving as much as the Establishment ? Her bishops, probably, do not receive as much, nor perhaps her priests in the North of Ireland. But, through the rest of the island, it is notorious, that the income of the parish priests, and still more of their curates, is greater than that of the same ranks among the established clergy. J. K. L. speaks, in terms sufficiently contemptuous, of a regium donum ; good reason he has to reject it. Besides, my Lord, the tithes do not come from the poor man; not so with the revenues of the priest. The entire system of his profession is one oast engine for grinding down the
poor ; its hundred arms catch the victim at every turn, andwith the purgatory which has been invented for a similar purposehe is not suffered to escape, until he has paid the last farthing.
“ J. K. L. says, that those who receive tithes are not the pastors of the people,' Hinc illæ lachrymæ, This may be a good reason why J. K. L. should be angry; but no reason why tithes should not be paid. The Clergy, as the impropriators, claim tithes by the law of the land. J. K. L. has not impugned the title of the Duke of Devonshire; and his Grace holds no less than twenty livings. Why not be equally lenient to a parson who holds but one 2".
J: K. L has shown too, although incidentally, that the tithe system in Ireland, has been of incalculable benefit. When she House of Commons; by a wise vote, secured their grazing lands from the inroads of the parson, cattle not crops, was the produce of Ireland,' (page 36.) Roused by the wisdom of the Commons, and recollecting, perhaps, the policy of Charlemagne, the hitherto lazy parsons began to encourage agriculture. J. K. L. acquaints üs with the result. * By tillage, Ireland has been rendered the granary
of the empire, and exports, after maintaining her own vast population, corn to the value of several millions annually,' (page 36.) And now, my Lord, can J. K. L. deny, that the Established Church is an advantage to Ireland, and to the empire?”
But we must stop, though there is much more in this excellent pamphlet, which we are desirous to bring under our reader's notice. We earnestly recommend the whole of this admirable publication to the attention of the public; and we do not hesitate, on their behalf, to return the warmest thanks to its able and enlightened author.
We have been so long detained by the superior importance of Declan's publication, that we have scarcely any space left for remarks on the third pamphlet whose title appears at the head of this article. We should not, however, be able to promise our readers, that they would find much novelty in that pamphlet. But it embraces all the subjects of Dr. Doyle's performance, and contains various just observations ; some particularly on our Liturgy. We feel the less regret at being obliged to confine ourselves to making favourable mention of it generally; as a critic may possibly be not well qualified to do justice to its merits, immediately after his perusal of the masterly pages of DECLAN. There are, however, two quotations in the pamphlet before us, which, notwithstanding our present extremely narrow limits, we shall submit to our readers. The observations on church property by Mr. Burke, in his celebrated pamphlet on the French Revolution, are so well known, that we may pass over the citations from his work, in the publication now under our notice; more particularly, as the same citations have been lately before the public, in an other and valuable pamphlet on church property in Ireland, written under the signature of S. N.*; and attributed to a Member of the Episcopal bench of that country. But, for those amongst our readers who may, not yet have perused the late Charge of the Archbishop of Cashel, we give the following quotation from his just remarks on church property in Ireland.
“It must, I admit, be a point of indifference to the revenue of the state, whether the proprietor of the soil, or the rector of the parish, profit by the tenth of its produce; but it cannot be a point
* Published by Rivingtons.
of indifference to the well-being of the State, whether that portion be bestowed on one who is thereby bound to the discharge of certain official obligations, of certain religious and social duties towards those amongst whom he resides, (and we desire it to be remembered, that residence is one of his official obligations ;'), or upon one, who would be bound by it, to no official obligation whatsuever, The latter may indeed covet the property of the former; but, were he to obtain possession of it, it would be a possession which the title-deeds of his estate have not conveyed to him, and which no law of the land ever recognized as his ; it would be a direct spoliation, as impolitic as unjust.
The other quotation to which we have alluded, is from a speech made in Parliament by Lord Maryborough, then Mr. Wellesley Pole, and Chief Secretary for Ireland. This quotation was also in the pamphlet of $. N. from which the author of the publication now before us appears to have taken it. The statement of Lord Maryborough should be particularly attended to.
“ I asked an honourable friend of mine this morning, a part of whose estate is tithe-free, what was the difference of the rent which he received for the land that was tithe-free, and for that which was not? He told me he received ten shillings an more for the land that was tithe-free than he did for the other. I then asked him what was the amount of the tithe on that part of his land of equal quality, and contiguous to the other, which was subject to it. He said, about fourteen pence per acre.”
Here we have at least one remarkable instance, to shew the nature of the benefit which the Irish peasantry might derive from all their lands being made tithe-free; and one proof of the galling and intolerable burden, which (according to the popish Bishop Doyle,) the payment of tithes to the Protestant Clergy imposes on them. Truly, if Lord WelLESLEY, by the nominal abolition of tithes in Ireland, but, in effect, their transfer into the hands of rack-rent Landlords and oppressive Middlemen, shall conduct the peasantry of that country "into a land flowing with milk and honeythe joy of all lands,” he will not merely be the Moses, but the HOHENLOHE of Ireland.
Dr. Doyle may be assured, that however the execution of his proposed transfer of Irish tithes might gratify the hostile feelings of himself and the rest of the Popish priests, against the Protestant church, and gain popularity amongst a number of selfish persons, who would hope to participate in the spoil; it would injure rather than serve the Irish Roman Catholic populace; while such inflammatory publications as that with which he has favoured thém-fit aids to the speeches of his friend and example, Mr. O'Connell-must
contribute to mar or impede the best efforts for the amelioration of their condition.
TO OUR READERS. Notice having been given in Parliament, that questions of importance relative to the Church in Ireland, will be brought forward early in March ; we have been obliged to give, in our present Number, the whole of the above long article, which under other circumstances we should have divided. We trust that the pressing importance of the subject, at this crisis, will plead our excuse for the extraordinary length of the article, which has compelled us, most reluctantly to defer two critiques we had prepared. They shall appear our next publication.
Had we not cited fully from Dr. Doyle's performance, what he adduced as reasons for his proposed transfer of tithes, we might appear to have used the Popish Doctor unfairly; and had we, in any representation of the answer of DECLAN, mutilated his arguments, we should have treated Him and the Public with injustice.
MONTHLY LIST OF PUBLICATIONS.
The Book of the Church. By Robert Southey, L.L.D. 2 Vols. 8vo. 11. 4s.
The Universal Diffusion of the Christian Faith considered in a Sermon, preached at St. Martin's, Leicester, Nov. 24, 1823; being the Third Anniversary of the District Committee of the Societies for Pronoting Christian Knowledge, and for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Paris, established in the County of Leicester. By the Rev. G. Beresford, M.A., Rector of St. Andrew's, Holborn. 8vo. 1s, 6d.
The Churchman's Song of Praise, a Sermon preached upon the Opening of the Organ in Gateshead Church, Jan. 25, 1824. By the Rer. C. Thorp, B.D. Rector of Ryton, &c. 8vo. 1s.
A Catechism on the Nature, Constitution, Government, and Authority of the Christian Church By L. Matthias, Curate of Megavissey, Cornwall. 3d.
A Village Sermon, on the Usefulness and Delight of Psalm Singing, preached in the Parish Church of St. Stephen, Herts. By the Rev. T. Clarke, A.B. Curate. 8vo. 1s.
A Sequel to the Granımar of Sacred History, being a Paraphrase on the Epistles and Gospels for every Sunday throughout the year; with Explanatory Notes. By M. A. Rundall, 12mo. 45. 6d. bound.
Cain and Lamech; or, the Comparative Numbers of Seven and Seventy times Seven, illustrative of the 15th, 23d, and 24th Verses of the 4th Chapter of Genesis: a Dissertalion, by the Rev. Wm. Vansittart, Vicar of White Walibam, and Master of Wigston's Hospital, Leicester. 8vo. 23.
Three Letters addressed to Mr. C. Wellbeloved, Tutor of the Unitarian College, York; occasioned by his Epistolary Attack on a late Visitation Charge of the Ven, and Rev. F. Wrangham, M... Archdeacon of Cleveland. By the Rev. J. Oxlee, Rector of Scawton, and Curate of Stoneyrave. 8vo. 48. 6d.
Questions on the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. 18mo. 1s.
A Sermon on the Christian Priesthood. By the Rev. E. Berens, M.A, late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 3d.
A Sermon on the Lord's Supper. By the Rev. E. Berens, M.A. late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 3d.
The Evidence of Christianity, derived from its Nature agd Reception. By J.