The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-16 00:00:00

LONDON :
MONDAY EVENING, JULY 16, 1838.

The feeling which is growing up between the tithe
owners and4apd otters of England may be inferred from
the following feCter, Which we copy as a corroboration of
the assertions we 1/4ave twice made on the subject :
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES, AND TO ALL THE BENE-
FICED CLERGY OF ENGLAND AND WALES.
It is my intention to appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench against
the poor-rat"..s of the parish of which I am incumbent, if the tithe or
tithe renLeharge shall be assessed, as by the existent rate, in the new
rate alsout to be granted.
Mr. Shaw Lefevre was informed of this by letter before the bringing
in of his Bill (by misnomer yclep'd a declaratory Bill), and if I may
trust to the assurance of my agent, Mr. James Dean, a land surveyor, of
Tottenham, the Hon. Member declared to him, " That he would not
follow up his notice of motion for leave bring in this his (iniquitous and
preventive) Bill, if I would engage to carry my appeal to the Queen's
Bench." On this I wrote to Mr. Lefevre, that " I would do so if
the grievance was continued, but not so if it should be abated, nor if I
was to be deterred by this declaratory Act, or by any previous new de-
eision of the Courts "

The Parochial Assessment Act was intended, or was not Intended, to
leave the law untouched for the relative rating fir land and tithes. If
the law and decisions on the law be the same as before the late Act, why
prevent appeals to the Court ? But if thu Parochial Assessment Act
did iniquitously, (that is unequally) alter the proportionate rating of lands
and tithes, and other rateable matter of profit, it did so surreptitiously,
not openly, or why were this Bill rif open and partial excising of tithe
incomes alone now necessary. The " Attorney-General" may escape
this dpernica if he can by his " satisfactory" legislation on the point.
To account fur a very general oppression of the tithe-owner by the
overseers, it is only necessary that we note, that landlords make the laws,
and lAndloids and their tenants and farmers have regulated the rating,
both before and since the new assessment act came into operation.
" Truth lies scattered in the street, and equity cannot enter."
I am, Sir, and reverend brethren, your obedient servant,
THE INCUMBENT OF SHENLEY,
HERTFORDSHIRE.

Our readers will remember that we have mentioned that
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL'S name is on the back of the
Bill, as well as that of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE ; and it will
be balm to them, as it is to us, to find the clergy stigma-
tizing a Bill as iniquitous, which that defender of all that
is abuse in the Church supports. The Rev. Mr. JONES
has also spoken of it as an iniquitous measure, intended for
the advantage of those by whom it is supported. When
their own selfish. interest is touched, our Clergy appear in
the light of great moral teachers, and indignantly rebuke
the legislative chicanery which would despoil the hard-
working and under-paid Clergy cf a part of their incomes
for the advantage of landlords, whose rent is the reward of
no services whatever. If they be " ambassadors of heaven," as
the Bishop of LONDON styles them in his Coronation Ser-
mon, bearing its messages to earthly Sovereigns, and de-
flouncing wicked doers, what a pity it is for their as-
Burned character that they have never denounced the Corn
Laws, or the Sugar Bounties, or the Coal monopoly, or any
other of the scandalous Acts of the Legislature, which
plunder the hard working artizans. What a pity it is they
Lave never assumed these lofty functions tilt the hand of
the land-owner was thrust, as they say, into their own
pocket. Worldy men will not s:eruple to affirm that their
more.' indignation is altogether founded, en their own selfish-
ness, and that they never said a .ort;rd against the Corn-
laws, 'because they bcnefitted by that iniquity, and they
condemn Mr. LErEvces 81, only because it touches them-
selves: They, it is trty.,, are the Guardians of the Poor—
they constitute the, poor man's Church ; but, under the
term " poor" thr..y consider only the Clergy, and to the exclu-
six ruse of that body of men they devote all the wealth of
the Church, and all which they can grasp.
The qu err, Is already arising bJwcrn the two classes
who are (uric:lied by taxing the people's bread is an indi-
emit n of what will lic:eAer nos from the commutation of
tithes Act. As long or, the oceupir r paid the tithes, and had
to battle it out the titheowner, although tithes may
ultimately de.baction from rent, which is not always the
cafe, to the full amount of the tithes, the landlords were
collision with the titheowners. The tithes never
cov,ared to belong to them, hut under the Commutation
Act, the rroount of them will be p lid into their hands ; the
tithe-rent will mull their account at their bankers ;it will
be in their possession ; and they will be male to feel that
thus titheowncrs take away so much propcily which, for
a women!, at least, was theirs. Twice per year will
they he runindc.l of the large de luction which
is made from their income by the Clergy. On
them = exclusivtly will appear to fall the whole weight
of the establishment ; and it' they promote an iniquitous
measure to abate five per ctrl. of the burden, will they ab-
stain from promoting an iniquitous measure which wail re-
move it I,lltogctlur? Their conduct es to the Corn Laws
is a full anscr',r to the question. Why should they, who plun-
tict aP
•. ei•orl:ing elds!cs by law, beagle at plundeitng
Ine tithe own et by ;be same mewls? They lily find pLnty
tf rr..o-sts in the improv.!niect of e.:riLultnre. Box, too,
cm .heir conrelerates in wrong complain or having the same
measure desk r. ut to them, which they have silently t!otisted
to the landlords dealing out to ;,he wolliingclas:Ts? Ere a few
years have elapsed, the tithe-owning eh'rgy will bittvrly regret
their silence as to the Cot n-law plunder, and that they
never denounced robbery by law till it threitecett tl cm-
sdves.

We arc remindel by this di,pnte of the wisdo:n of Sir
R. PEEL, who found out in a debate on the Irish Tithe
ceation, that the funds are a far better security for the
tithe-owners' revenue than land. We think the Right
Bon. Baronet did not vote the other evening on Mr.
SHAW LEFEVRE'S Bill ; at any rate, he did not sup-
port his chum, Mr. GOULBURN, by his speech ; but
we do not see how, with his plausible moral
character, his great attachment to the Church I
and his horror of appropriation, he C.. 1.1 r:fuse his