The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-05 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS.

W. Plume, Stock, Essex, builder, Jan. 11, at twelve, at
the Court of Commissioners—T. T. Ryan, Pitfield-street,
merchant, Jan. 25, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners
—J. Crisp, Idol-lane, Great Tower-street, wine-merchant,
Jan. 25, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners—A.
Dobbie, Manchester, wine-merchant, Jan. 26, at eleven,
at the Blackfriars Inn, Manchester—T. Floud, Exeter,
hanker, Feb. 5, at eleven, at the New London Inn,
Exeter—T. Atkinson, Holbeach, Lincolnshire, wheel-
wright, Jan. 26, at eleven, at the Chequers Inn, Hol•
beach—J. Riley, Sheffield, Yorkshire, grocer, Jan. 26, at
twelve, at the Tontine Inn, Sheffield—T. Parkinson, eon.,
T. Parkinson, jun., and J. Lilley, Mill-place, Scawby,
Lincolnshire, raff-merchants, Jan. 29, at eleven, at the
Kingston Hotel, Kingston-upon-Hull—T. Sylvester,
Witney, Oxfordshire, currier, Jan. 26, at ten, at the house
of R. Bartratn, Oxford—NV. Wales, York, flax-dresser,
Feb. I, at eleven, at the house of Mrs. E. Monkman, Old
Sand Hill, Yorkshire.

CERTIFICATES, JAN. 35.
J. R. Stevenson, Manchester, ironmonger—R. Baker,
Birmingham, linen-draper—T. Anderton, Leeds, York-
shire, grocer—R. Ferguson, Great Prescot-street, Good-
man's-fields, carpenter—J. Steel, Southwark Bridge-
road, builder—ll. Wilson, Sunderland Wharf, Milbank-
street, Westminster, coal-merchant—T. Sedgwick and J.
Hearn, Billiter-street, merchants—NV. Prince, Grace-
church-street, slop-seller—R. Silvey, Norwich, bornba-
zeen-manufacturer—T. Rishworth, Keighley, Yorkshire,
worsted-spinner—W. Denman, Bangor, Carnarvonshire,
shopkeeper—G. Stedman, Watton, Norfolk, merchant.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
G. W. and R. Norman, Tokenhouse-yard, merchants—
H. and M. Verinder, St. Paul's Church-yard, cutlers—
S. and J. Morrell, Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, common-
brewers—R. M. Phillipps and A. Whellock, Littler
Tower-street, lightermen—J. Dempsey and J. Pickard,
Liverpool, timber-merchants—J. Dempsey, J. Pickard,
and L. Frost, Liverpool, timber-measurers—J. Stubbs
and S. Danks, Birmingham, attorneys—B., W., and G.
Gibbing, Birmingham, merchants—T. Slade, W. Cox,
and T. Slade, jun., Poole, Newfoundland, merchants—
J. Harrington, W. Wilde, and R. Robley, Woodbank,
Cumberland, calico-printers—J., J. W., and H. Knapp,
Cirencester-place, Marylebone, builders—R. Verity and
T. Wood, Bolton-street—J. Sugden and R. Gill,
Woodsome Lees, Yorkshire, manufacturers of fancy
goods—W. Ridley and R. Beckley, Charlotte-steet,
Sloane-street, paper-stainers—J. and A. A. 13 di,
New Sarum, Wiltshire, millers—S. Paget and D.
Turner, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, beer-brewers—
T. and J. Dyson, Ecclesall Bierlow, Yorkshire, scythe-
manufacturers—B. Ford, E. B. Goffe, and J. Parrniter,
Winchester, grocers—J. Cook, T. P. Warren, and J. P.
Cook, Crown-court, Cheapside, warehousemen—A. Webb,
T. Moore, and C. Webb, Miles's-lane, wine-merchants—
R. Barrett and R. Floyd, Cbacewater, Cornwall, drapers—
J. Macdon Ad and W. Ravenscroft, Liverpool, merchants
—G. and F. Squibb, Saville-row, Westminster, auctioneers
—J. Williams and R. Gillow, Liverpool, painters—W.
Venables and D. Wilson, London—J. Scott, P. Bell, C.
Alexander, and R. Duckworth, London, commission-
agents—J. Ha.selden and G. B. Highfield, Liverpool—C.
Cawton and B. Turner, Sheffield, file-manufacturers—J.
Andrew and J. Hutton, jun., Liverpool-street, Battle-
bridge, wine-merchants—J. Preston, and W. W. and
J. N. Wimble, Hull—W. Allport, W. Rees, and B. All-
port, Liverpool, coffee.dealers—P. Burgess and J. Dollery
Holborn-hill, perfumers—W. H. Stewart, and G. C. and
W. 11. Lee, Birmingham, iron-dealers—W. Spurrier and
C. Ingleby, Birmingham, attorneys—W. Monzani and E.
Smyth, Strand, flute manufacturers—F. Clarke and D.
and S. Morgan, Archangel, merchants—D. Whatley, sen.,
and D. Whatley, jun., Cirencester, Gloucestershire, at-
torneys—J. Driffill and J. Menuell, Kingston-upon-Hull,
rail-merchants.

The Marchioness of ANGLE,SEA and the
younger branches of her family still remain in London.
tier Ladyship will shortly tyke her departure for the beau-
tiful seat in Wales. The Marchioness is not expected to
join the Marquis in Dublin, until early in the spring.

THE CALUMNIATORS OF THE CHURCH.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,-Although your columns are at all times open to
calumnies against the Church,—no doubt for certain
weighty and substantial reasons,"`—l claim from your
candour a place for my reply to the attack made on me in
your publication of the 28th ult.
And, first, the accusation of deception on my part, I
meet with the distinct avowal, that whatever I have as-
sumed in my " Reasons" for the Society for the Propa-
gation of the Gospel, as to its efforts—success,—the cha-
racter, zeal, and vigilance of its clstgy, the anxiety mani-
fested by risitig townships to enjoy the labours of a Mis-
sionary, and their willingness, the moment it was in their
power, to remunerate them, has been assumed on facts
contained in the Reports, which neither have been, nor
can be, contradicted. No inference has been drawn in
its favour, no opinion has been pronounced on its merits,
unaccompanied by a direct reference to the patticulCr
Report cud spnci6 page oh which that inference or that
opinion has been founded : so that the accuracy both of
my statements and arguments may be proved or disproved
at a glance.
With respect to deception on the part of the Society, I
unbesit.itingly affirm, after a very severe scrutiny of its
Reports for the last twenty years—l say scrutiny, because
I have not read but studied there that I have found but
two inetatices in which a pledge has been given in one
Report, and not fully redeemed in the next : and these
were cases in which a sufficient reason was assigned why
the good proposed to be effected could only be partially
accomplished.
The next charge of my assailant, that " the Mis-
sionaries sent out by the Society have been, with few
exceptions, mEN OF NO CHARACTER," I dismiss with the
simple observation, that if public parish meetings, assem-
bled to record their sorrow at losing their Missionary—if
entreaties to remain, and invitations to return—if public
testimonies to their ministerial ability and private worth
fall to the lot of " men of no character," then I admit
the Missionaries of this Society are bankrupts in reputa-
tion, and idiots in intellect. With these tributes the Re-
ports abound, and with these impartial attestations to
their worth staring him in the face, I must admire in say
turn, " his enviable assurance" in makin; a charge so
opposed to truth, and so easy of refutation.
Is reference to the alleged exclamation of Sir James
Keinpt on the arrival of certain Missionaries in the colony,
that " he knew not what the Board could mean by
sending out such men, and was at a loss what to do
with them," I have frankly to observe, that it is ao com-
pletely at variance with what Sir James has said in other
quarters, with the written testimony which he has borne
to the value and services of the Society, and the readiness
with which lie has at all times lent his influence to aid its
views and mature its wishes, that until it rests on surer
testimony than the mere " ipsc dixit" of an anonymous
assailant, I SHALL NOT BELIEVE ir !
The same remark will apply to my antagonist's covert
sneer on the wild and reckless debauchee in the garb of a
Clergyman who came out to the colony " with letters of
recommendation from the Lord Bishop of London!"
His Lordship will readily remember the circumstance ;
and it is not for me to attempt to defend him.
The censure passed on the Society by Bishop Moun-
tain, from his death-bed, is, I admit, somewhat startling ;
more particularly when coining from a " relative !" But
on consideration, it is so completely contradicted by every
previous act of that Prelate's life, so amply refuted by
his unlimited confidence in the Society, and his cheerful
co-operation in its munificent designs, that I hesitate not
to pronounce it an imputation on his sincerity, and a libel
on his character which, were he living, lie would be the
first to repel with disdain.
1 am, Sir, your very humble servant,
ERSKINE NEALE.
Weston, near South Shields, Jan. 1, 1831.

[* We insert this letter as a mere act of justice
to our correspondent, who fancies himself aggrieved
by another ; though at the same time we beg leave
to express in the most unqualified manner our
astonishment, not to say our disgust, at the in-
famous insinuation with which this Mr. Erskine
Neale chooses to commence his long diatribe, " Al-
though your columns are at all times open to ca-
lumnies against the Church—no doubt, for weighty
and substantial reasons."—Pray, what does the man
meal' by this ? Does he dare to imply that we have
been bribed to calumniate the Church ? If so, we
can only say that he measures our standard of inte-
grity by his own—and we indignantly reject such a
test. Of the two contending parties, Mr. Erskine
Neale and his opponent, we know nothing, and
with regard to the former, we shall be proud and
happy to remain always i❑ the same contented igno-
rance. We omit the conclusion of this gentleman's
letter; it is grossly libellous.—EDlTOß aur.]

TITHES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

51R,..-.As the Editor of the Times refuses, or, at any
rate, omits to insert communications opposed to the opi-
nions expressed in the leading article of that Journal, I
request, as a fevour, the insertion of a few remarks on the
subject of tithes.
In the Times of the 31st ult. is the following—" And
in the name of law we will say a few words on the subject
of tithe being a tax, and not properly, as is now asserted,
as what will not be asserted by impudence, to impose on
selfish ignorance? If it be a tax, of course it came out in
the Budget. Whit Chancellor of the Exchequer laid it
on ?" 84c.
Who can read t'ie above, and not exclaim what stuff!—
what silly, weak, and contemptible proof is adduced, or
rather no proof at all ! Did the Editor never hear of pa-
rochial taxes? Did he never call the poor-rate, the high-
way-rate, and the church-rate, tuxes? All these (call
them rates or taxes) are levied by authority of the Legis-
lature, yet they do not appear in the Budget, nor are they
laid on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But to call
tithes a tax is impudence, it seems, although levied under
the same authority as all other taxes. That a particular '
class of persona or individuals have received the right to
take tithes, does not alter the 'value of tithes—that can-
not make them property. The right to tithes is properly.
I admit, so long as the law which confers that right re-
mains in force ; but I assert that such right is derived
solely from the law of the land ; that tithes area mere sti-
pend or pay for services performed or intended to be per-
formed for the benefit of the people, and that, whenever it
appears no longer for the welfare of the people, such law
ought, and may, without injustice, be repealed. Now
the right to property is riot derived from the law of the
land ; laws are made to protect and preserve our property.
In disputed property the law does not give the tight, but
only decides' which claimant shows the greatest right to it.
I assert that the "impudence to iinpose on selfish igno-
rance" is displayed by the Editor of the Times most
strikingly. The article seems written on purpose to catch
the unwary, and to check and smother the few rays of
light that have lately broke forth on this dark subject;
but I would tell the writer it is now too late to make
persons in the country believe such monstrous untruths—
they begin now to inquire into the history of tithes ; for
what purposes this tax was imposed, and by whom and
when, the people are generally acquainted ; the Editor of
the Times will find the " impudent assertion" that tithes
are only a tax, and a very oppressive and unjust tax, will
be made in every parish in the kindom. It will be found
that it was imposed under the influence of priestcraft and
superstition, when the Church of Rome was the only
community professing Christianity, and that it was one
of the impure things retained in the Reformation of 1520,
but against which several of the early perfarmers protested
as unchristian. The payment of tithes was nowhere en-
forced until several years after the Christian era.
The Editor of the Times quotes from " Blackstone ;"
but he will find that Blackstone states (see the first edition
of the " Commentaries,"—" At the first establishment of
parochial Clergy, the tithes of the parish were distributed
in a fourfold division, one for the use of the Bishop, an-
other for maintaining the fabric of the Church, a third
for the poor, and a fourth for the incumbent." Now,
even if it could be proved that tithes are property, not
merely dependant on the law of the land, yet they are not
applieel to their original purposes ; and who is guilty of
the injustice of appropriating them to their own use ? I
am surprised at the inconsistency of many persons warmly
attached to the Established Church, who, professing to con-
sider tithes as actually the property of the Clergy, yet would
petition for their diminution or commutation into a tax upon
the rent instead of upon the produce ; say, for instance, two
shillings in the pound to be paid on the rental of every
parish : this would, doubtless, be a great alleviation ; but
I contend that if tithes are actual property, we have no
more right to petition for their being arbitrarily lessened
or commuted, than my neighbour has that my land may
be given to him or exchanged to please him ; but
it iS
clear that tithes are not property, correctly speaking;
Repeal the tithe laws, and where is the title to them
But it is not so with an annuity or quit-rent claimed from
any estate; this will always appear in the title, which title
would remain if all laws and Government were at an end,
even if not respected. Can we wonder at the unsettled
state of Ireland, when seven millions of people, not a

tenth of whom are members of the Established Church,
are taxed for its support, besides having to contribute to
their own churches and religious offices—a people, most of
whom are members of that church with which establish-
ments and tithes originated. h this just? Can we won-
der at their wishing to repeal the Union ?

A LANDOWNER.

[We insert the above letter because the article on
which it comments appeared in The Situ; but we
have no desire to be putting in the remarks of cot-
respondents on articles which have appeared in other
papers.—ELt. SUN.]