misery of their tenantry to them, as we believe that they really do add something to this misery; and as we have never seen them discussed according to our wishes, in the most material part of their operation, we will advert to them as briefly as possible, without apology.

:

The title of the Church to Tithes is as clear as a title can possibly be. The land was by law subject to them before it came into the possession of the present owners: when it was purchased by these owners, or their ancestors, the value of the tithes was accurately calculated, and the amount of the purchase money reduced accordingly the sum they gave was only sufficient to procure a rent that would enable the occupier to pay tithes, and they never expected to receive more than such a rent. Whenever an occupier takes land subject to tithes, he calculates their value to a penny, and he care fully proportions his offer to the landlord to this value. It has been admitted on all hands, that the rent and tithes jointly, of land subject to the latter, seldom equal the rent alone of land that is tithe-free.

Now, it must be glaringly obvious to every man of common sense, that if the landlord demand a rent which will not permit the occupier to pay tithes, he demands what is monstrously unjust. The Church, as a third party, had nothing to do with, and is in no shape bound by, his contract; those from whom he bought, or inherited, had no more right to touch the interest of this third party, than himself, and, in strict equity of bargain, he has no right to rent at all, until the Church has received its due. And it must be equally clear, that if the gross charge upon titheable land be below, rather than above that upon tithe-free land, the tithes cannot justly, or naturally, be a burden' upon the occupier; and that they can only be rendered so by the misconduct of himself or the clergyman.

With regard to the Clergy, all parties bear testimony to their moderation. We have it in evidence from Sir John Newport and others, that they are so far from receiving more than their right, that what they receive falls greatly below it. We have it in evidence, which no one attempts to contradict, that the litigation in which they are involved, arises not from their VOL. XV.

rapacity or unaccommodating disposition, but from its being their only alternative to procure a portion only of what they are entitled to. The frequency of tithe-suits, their ruinous expense, and the rapacity of proctors, are used as the chief argument against tithes. But what constitutes their source? What causes the law to be resorted to, and affords the proctor the means of exercising his rapacity? If the inability of the clergyman to procure his just right-what the land, if justly let, can pay-without the aid of the law, be an argument for the abolition of tithes, then the inability of the landlord to procure his rent, and of the money lender to procure his interest, without the aid of the law, is an argument for the abolition of rents and the interest of money. If the occupier be really without the means of paying the tithes, what strips him of them, but his own extravagance, or the extortion of the landlord? and ought either of these to render the robbery of the clergyman just and necessary? If he be able to pay them, and refuse from litigious motives, from hatred of the Protestant church, or from the most false and criminal notions respecting property, is this a sufficient reason for calling the tithes an oppressive burden, or a burden of any kind, upon the Irish occupier?

It is demonstrably clear, that if the landlord and clergyman merely seek their right, and the occupier is desirous of rendering to each his due, the tithes cannot be a cause of dissatisfaction and injury, and the occupiers of titheable, cannot be in a worse situation, than those of tithe-free, land. And it is equally clear, that the mischiefs which are ascribed to the tithes in Ireland, flow mainly from the bad feelings of the peasantry. We will glance at these feelings, to ascertain how far they are susceptible of change.

Although the buyer of land subject to tithes, only, in strict truth, buys and pays for nine-tenths of it, he nevertheless exercises many of the rights of ownership over the whole, and is universally called the sole owner. The tenant treats with him alone for the occupation, and regards him as his only landlord. The rent is agreed upon before the tenant obtains posses sion, and if it be not paid, or if he refuse to pay such an advance as the landlord may afterwards make, he is

2 N

expelled from the land forthwith. The only right of ownership that the cler gyman can exercise is, to claim a certain portion of the land's produce; he cannot say a word in the choice of the tenant-the precise amount of his claim has to be fixed after this tenant obtains possession, and however dishonest and refractory he may prove, he cannot remove him. When the clergyman can thus interfere no farther with the occupier, than to claim his tithes, and when the landlord is regarded as the sole owner, the tithes are looked upon as merely a direct tax, and with all the dislike with which direct taxes are ever regarded. It matters not that the full value of the tithes are subtracted from the rent-the tenant still regards them as an impost; and if their amount, either in money or produce, have to be settled annually, he thinks neither of honesty nor anything else, except beating down the clergyman to the lowest penny. This is human nature; and, in truth, he would have the same struggle with his landlord, if his rent varied yearly, and he could not be discharged. The farmers combine, and are perhaps countenanced by the landlord, and the clergyman has the whole parish to contend with, single-handed. If he once bring them into court, there is nothing but ill blood and strife afterwards. This is the case in England, as well as Ireland, where the tithes are not compounded for by an arrangement which needs no alteration for years.

In Ireland, however, the tithes are regarded, not merely with the dislike which people in general entertain towards direct taxes, but with abhorrence, as forming a burden of the most unjust and iniquitous description. The Irish Catholic has not only to pay tithes, but he has to pay them to a Protestant clergyman-to a man whom he regards as a usurper, receiving them to the direct robbery of the Catholic pastor. Here is the grand source of that inveterate hostility to tithes which pervades the Irish peasantry. The English dissenter never pays the church-rates, without sulfenly intimating to the collector, that it is exceedingly unjust to compel him to assist in supporting a church to which he does not belong; and it may be easily supposed, how this feeling operates on the Irishman, when he

has to pay those tithes to another church, which he honestly believes to be the just property of his own. Convince him that, in real truth, the tithes do not come out of his pocket

that they are paid by the landthat he would have to pay the amount of them to the landlord, if the Church did not claim it-and that the landlord virtually puts money into his hands to pay them with-still his hatred of the tithes must continue. It is a matter of conscience with him, as well as of money; for they are still paid to the Protestant Church, instead of his own. The Catholic clergy regard the tithes as a right, of which they have been unjustly dispossessed; the tithes form the chief instrument by which they can keep up the hatred of their flocks towards the Protestant Church; and it may be fairly assumed, that their unlimited influence will be unsparingly exercised to maintain that hostility to the payment of tithes which at present exists.

Forgetting Ireland for the moment, and looking only at human nature, we do not think that anything could operate more perniciously in any community, than the compulsive payment of tithes by the people, to a Church hostile to, and, in their eyes, the usurper of the rights and emoluments of, their own. If the Catholics were by any means to obtain the ascendancy, and the church property in England, it would be almost impossible to compel the Protestant occupiers to pay tithes to the Ministers; and if land were as extensively subject to tithes here, as in Ireland, there would be as much difficulty experienced in collecting, and as great an outery raised against them, as are to be found in the sister kingdom. We firmly believe, that however unprovoked and criminal the animosity against them might be, nothing could remove it, so long as the people remained attached to their Church, and under the influence of its Ministers. An animosity like this, flowing from religious hatred, and having no regard for law or justicearising, not from overcharge, or inability to pay, but from the belief that the whole demand is iniquitous-cannot fail of having the most deplorable consequences among men so barbarous, inflammable, and vindictive, as the Irish peasantry. It must produce eternal litigation, alike injurious to the

Church and the tithe payers; and it must exasperate the people against the Protestant Church and its members, not even excepting the Protestant rulers.

We therefore arrive at this conclusion:-The tithes are the clear and necessary right of the Church-in their legal and just operation, they are paid by the land, without injuring in the least the landlord or the tenant-the conduct of the Irish clergy, in collecting them, is distinguished by justice and moderation-the opposition to the payment of them, which pervades the Irish peasantry, is unprovoked and unjustifiable and all the injury that accrues to the tithe payers, from the collection of the tithes, must be charged upon their own bad feelings and conduct. Nevertheless, the aversion of the Irish Catholics to pay tithes to the Protestant Church, however unsanctioned by law and equity, is founded upon human nature, and would prevail to a great extent in any nation that might be circumstanced as Ireland is; it is incapable of being eradicated, or softened down into harmlessness-it inflicts very great injuries on the Church, as well as on the tithe payers it exasperates the Irish people against the Protestant Church, the members of this church, and the Protestant government, and tends materially to keep them in a state of turbulence and disaffection; therefore, any change of shape or commutation of tithes, that would remove it, without diminishing in the smallest degree the Church revenues, would be, on national grounds, in the highest degree desirable.

An attempt is now making to give to the tithes the shape of rent, rather than that of a tax or rate; but we fear its success will be neither general nor permanent. The difficulties of accomplishing such a change in Ireland seem to be unconquerable. The number of the occupiers, their poverty and ignorance, their bad spirit, subserviency to their religious teachers, and the motives from which their hostility to the tithes originates, forbid hope. We have, moreover, a very great dislike to the principle on which this attempt stands. We are quite sure, that if mutual interest will not lead parties into satisfactory arrangement, nothing else can ; and it is only an arrangement satisfactory to both that can produce

benefit. Commutation would be the only efficacious and durable remedy, and we cannot join in the opinion that it would be impracticable or inexpedient. In considering it, it is necessary to ascertain distinctly the principles upon which, and the parties by whom, it ought to be accomplished.

The clamour which has so long raged against the tithes, has constantly assumed, that the abolition or commutation of them would relieve the tenant, not from the law costs into which his litigious spirit and criminal opinions plunge him, but from a certain sum of unavoidable charge; that, if the tithes were no longer collected, his annual payments would be diminished by their amount. This is not madness, for madness never utters anything so entirely devoid of senseit is downright idiotcy. The Church and the Landlord, so far as regards our present inquiry, are co-proprietors of the land, and they divide the revenue that arises from it. If the tithes were diminished, the rent would be proportionably increased; and if they were wholly abolished, the tenant would be instantly called upon for additional rent fully equal to their amount.

If, therefore, Government were to strip the Church of tithes, what would be the consequence? The tithes are not salaries paid by the state, or by the occupiers of the soil-they form the interest of an immense mass of solid, tangible property-the rent of an extensive portion of land. If Government, therefore, were to use them as a fund, it must either collect them as usual, or sell them to others who would do it; and in either case, unless they were sold to the landlord, the occupier would lose by the change. Were it to abolish the tithes altogether, without drawing one penny from it into the exchequer-were an act of Parliament to be immediately passed, declaring that the tithes should be no more collected, neither by the clergy nor any one else, it could not annihilate or diminish the property; and the interest of it-the tithes in effect, though not in name-would still be demanded and received of the occupier. If the capital sum and interest which compose the tithes remained, they would, of course, be enjoyed by some one, and they would be enjoyed exclusively by the landlord: the tenant

would have to pay quite as much for his land as at present; and no possible ingenuity could frame the nominal abolition in a manner that would operate more favourably towards him. The landlord would receive, for every ten thousand pounds worth of land that he might possess, one thousand pounds worth more, as a gift, and to which he would have no more right than the Caffre of Southern Africa. We repeat our denial of his right. He, or his ancestor, bought the land subject to tithes, and with the expectation that it would be subject to them for ever; the sum paid was less than the full value, by the worth of them, and he has no more right to them than he has to the crown of England.

When, therefore, the tithes are to the Church, not a salary paid by the state, or individuals, but the interest of a mass of real convertible property, would the Church be unwilling, or unable, to sell this property, and vest the produce in the purchase of land? And would it be unjust, or inexpedient, to permit it to do this, looking at its own interests, and those of the nation?

If the Church were suffered to act for itself in the business as a principal, subject only to such regulations as might be essentially necessary, its willingness cannot be doubted, without supposing it to be enamoured of loss, injury, contention, and hatred. With regard to ability, that must depend on the landlords-yes, on the landlords. They, and they alone, must purchase, or the tithes must, in name and reality, be collected from their tenants for ever. That it would be their pecuniary interest to do this, seems indisputable. From the losses which the Church now sustains, in litigation and inability to recover its right, a sale might be made, that would add to its revenue, and still give to the landholder a most profitable bargain. The very lowest estimated value might be taken, the buyer might draw six or seven per cent from his purchase money, and still the Church be a gainer. If it be pleaded that the landholders have not money, and could not borrow it, would it not be wise and safe, in the present circumstances of the country, for the Government to lend them money at a lower rate of interest for the purpose, when the object in view would be, not the profit of the Church or the landlord, but that of the nation? It is

not for us to sketch the details of such a plan. Commissioners might be appointed by the Church, in its collective capacity, on the one side, and by the landlords on the other, with instructions that would almost preclude the chance of disagreement their decisions might be subjected to all necessary revision-commutation might be limited to a certain number of parishes per annum-the money lent might be placed under the control of a certain number of English country gentlemen, as trustees-it might be lent for a fixed number of years, &c. &c.

We are aware that very high authorities on both sides of the House of Lords, have declared themselves to be repugnant to the conversion of the Church into a land proprietor; they, however, did not state the grounds of their repugnance, and we, in our ignorance, are unable to discover them. As far as we know, all the enclosure acts of latter times, have given the Church land in exchange for tithes. To give it, in exchange for a portion of the produce of a number of acres, as many acres as will yield the same quantity of produce, seems to be the surest way possible of preserving its revenues from augmentation, as well as diminution. Her possessions cannot be increased, and it seems to be impossible, for her ever to obtain a weight in the state, capable of being perverted into the means of injuring it. To give the clergyman tithes instead of land, in order to make him dependent on, and bring him in contact with, his flock, is, in the present day, a monstrous contradiction of the principles of nature. It is giving the school-boy authority over his teacher, that he may the more willingly profit by his instructions. In this country, the Church is a great land proprietor -in very many parishes, its sole income is derived from its own land, and the most salutary consequences flow from it. The clergy discharge their duties with exemplary diligence, and the utmost harmony prevails between them and their parishioners; while in those places where tithes are paid, the pastor and the flock are generally at variance; he, from the strife, discharges his duty coldly and heartlessly; and they, in malice, forsake him, and follow the dissenter. But the question must be determined by balancing the evils against the benefits, and we be

lieve no public measure of magnitude could be conceived, that would be so perfectly unobjectionable on the score of evil, and so highly desirable on that of benefit; and that would, moreover, be so easily practicable.

The case, in two words, is this:A has property which it is his interest to sell it is B's interest to buy this property, and, from the circumstances in which it is placed, a sale may be made on terms mutually advantageous to both. It is the interest of C that the sale should take place, and he possesses abundant means for enabling A and B to complete it. The tithe payers would be greatly benefited by it, and no class would be injured or inconvenienced by it whatever. We do not know what more could be said in its favour.

The landholders of Ireland have ever been the loudest in declaiming against the tithes; they have called them the curse of their country, and called again and again for commutation. Let them now stand forward, for they must take the lead in the matter, but let their conduct be what it ought to be. Let them hold public meetings, form themselves into a well connected body, and then address Parliament and the nation as follows: -We believe that the payment of tithes, by our Catholic tenantry to the Protestant Church, is productive of great evils; we believe that it subjects this Church to great vexations and losses that it engenders feelings in the peasantry, which lead them into ruinous conduct, and, which, however criminal, must exist, so long as the tithes are collected-and that it operates powerfully to prevent the spread of genuine religion and good sentiments towards the government. We believe that nothing can be a remedy, except a just commutation; and that no such commutation can be carried into effect, unless we become the purchasers of the tithes. If the Church, whose sacred property these are, be willing to sell at a moderate price, we are willing to buy, provided the country will lend money on mortgage, to such of us as need it, for compassing the purchase. Let them do this, and we shall be grievously mistaken if the Church and the country do not eagerly accept their offer.

We will here say one word on another point connected with the Church.

It has been again and again confidently asserted, that the revenue it draws from Ireland, impoverishes the country. This is evidently founded on the monstrous blunder which we have already noticed, of supposing, that were it annihilated, its possessions would drop gratuitously into the pockets of the peasantry; and that these possessions are not real property, but a tax which is levied generally on the country. We repeat, what must be obvious to every one, that were the clergy exterminated, their revenues would still have to be paid, either to the government, the landlord, or any person who might purchase them These revenues are just as much a tax, as the rent of land is, and clergy, or no clergy, they must still be collected, so long as the land possesses proprietors and occupiers. As a class of society and consumers, the clergy need not defenders.

Having pointed out what we believe to be the only remedy for the extreme indigence of the Irish occupiers, we must now speak of those members of the agricultural class, who do not occupy, and who cannot procure employment. That there is a great redundancy of population, and that it cannot be effectually acted upon by the capabilities of Ireland, seems to be unquestionable; but we cannot agree with those, who appear to think, that this redundancy is an evil not to be overcome. We have immense territories which need peopling, and we think no principle can be more clear than this, that, if the population be redundant in one part of the empire, it is the duty of Government, if it possess the means, to remove the excess to such other parts as need inhabitants. That Government possesses ample means for removing the surplus population of Ireland, needs no proof. If even so much as one million, or even two millions, were, for a term, annually expended in settling the surplus population of Ireland in Canada, and New South Wales, we are quite sure that, independently of the incalculable benefits which it would yield to the sister kingdom, it would be most profitable to the empire at large, as a mere money speculation. It would, by enabling the landlords to increase the size of their farms, and by giving to labour its due value, make those consumers, and, of course, tax payers, who now