The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1868-10-20 00:00:00

Corresponbencr.

THS LATE DORCHESTER YKETING.

To the Editor.

Sir ,—I observe that M • meetingheld at Dorchesteron
the 30th September, the Rev. C. Williams alludes as
follow, to • apesieh which I delivered at the meeting
held at Dorchester on the 24th September. "Mr.
V"tnfian 'aid. as regards the small proportion of Tithes
paid by the Boman Cetholice, he ventured to say that
the imitates from which thom Tithes are raised were
originally limited to their possessors almost entirely by
the Crown, subject to those Tithes; the estates not so
granted by the Crown had hien bought by their present
C. subject to those Tithes; therefore they never
irredwrito the possessors of the property ; so that the
Roman Celholsos eonld not say it was unjust, that they
should be celled upon to band over to the Rrotestanta
the Tithes which
Yestman forgot if that was true of the Roman Catholic
landlord it was equally true of the Protestant landlord,
he"

To this I makethefollowing reply :—Two widespread
popular errors slid, which induce a large number of
persons who have not studied the subject to think that
the Irish Branch of the United Church of England and
Ireland ought to be disendowed. These two errors ars
"that the &man C.atholics contribute most of the
Beaune* of the Inch Breach of the United Church
of Ragland sad Ireland ; and that their being compelled
to do so is • great injustice, and produces among them
widespread dissatisfaction." I refuted those errors by
proving that the Roman Catholics only pay onefifirth
of the Tithes of the Inch Church, and that thesis they
only hand over sa they nem belonged to them. I was
well aware, and no no doebt were most of those whom
I had the honour of addressing,.,that the Tithes which
the Proteatanta pay do not beloog to theta, JUT TO
HAY' ALLUDED TO THAT WOULD NATI BIEN OTT/11LT
IRREVALENT TO NT ARGUN'S?, AND COULD WILT HATS
BUN RATIONALLT ADVIIRTIO TO IT I HAD 11101 DIN.
PROVING • ITATININT THAT THR PROTICSTANTS WIRIL
AGORIEVID HT HAVING TO PAT TRIM.

Thera ir-etuSny 0;11; ;;Oi;t71111-41-0--s-peo. soh of the Rev.
C. Williams which are open to discussion, but I will
mediae my reolllloll to two Or three of them. I observe
that Hr. Williamson behalf of himself, and three whom
be represents, disclaims all desire of taking from the
Irish Church whatever " has been consecrated to the
service of God by Protestant Episcopalians in connection
with their church, or specially for them." As this
embraces almost the whole of the property of the Irish
Church, with the exception of Tithes, Air. Williams
then proceeds to dwell upon them. Here I must observe
(in answer to ate of his statements, that TitSes are of
Roman flatholio origin, and have been taken from them),
that if the right to Tithes was tioeseded by Henry IL
to the Irish Church after he bad acknowledged the
Papacy, that same right meetly belonged to the same
church after she had Reformed herself in the reign of
Henry VIII. Here it is important to state that this said
righf was not enforced awed after the Reformarion,
rthe /Dogfish Pale, vi,., Ike small Shires of
a.l
r.a‘ e , !Pahl, mad Louth; and the Roman Catholics
therefore never received more than one-ninth of the
Tithes.—See the evidence of the Roman Catholic Bishop
Doyle, before the select committee of the. House of
Commons on Tithes in Ireland, page 292.
Mr. Williams next argue, that the Tithes, having
been originally granted by the State, belong to
the 81st.; the people constitute the State, therefore
the people are the "tithe-owners." Thia argument
is somewhat dangerous, se for example, all the land
In Ireland and most of that in Ragland in ancesesive
rebellions ,has been forfeited to the State, and
granted to the State, and therefore belongs to the
State; the people *Destitute the State, therefore the
people are the owner, of all the land in Ireland and of
most of that in England. I eannot see the advantage of
the suggestion that property dedicated to the lorries of
God, and applied to the purpose of supplying the
people with the means of grace, should be perverted to
a work of supererogation, 1.e., that is to supply them
with the temporal relief with which they are already
legally supplied. Three arguments are adduced for the
dieestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church.
let, "that severing her from the State will give her in-
creased freedom of action." 2nd, "that depriving her
of her Tithes, and leaving her to depend for her support
on the voluntary system, will, much inures.* her use-
fulness ;" and 3rd, "that she should be Dieestablished
and Disendowei, bemuse all religious Seats ought to be
on perfect equality." I remark on this, that if English
Churchmen allow these arguments in the cased Ireland,
they must in consistency admit them In the case of
England.
In conclusion, I assert that the Tithes of the Iriih
Church were not Lest to her to be resamed when required
for other purposes, but that they were alssolisfe4 given
to her; that they have been hallowed by having been
dedicated for centuries to the service of God; and that
to seise them and pervert them to other purpoees would
be an unholy set of sacrilegioas spoliation.—Yours
faithfully,
MAR WOOD S. YEATMAN.