The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-05 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-April 3.

CLERKEN WELL. —The Rev. Dr. Worthing-
ton, Trinity Chapel, Gray's-inn-road, and two
other clergymen belonging to the district and parish
of St. Andrew's, Holborn, attended to support 34
summonses taken out at their instance against de-
faulters in the above parish who had not paid their
tithes.

The first case called on was that of Mr. Tilley, who,
after showing that there were different sums put
down in the summonses to those charged him in the
collector's notices, said he did not wish the case
stopped on any technical objection, but should like
to ask what substantial benefit he got for the money
he paid for tithes. He objected to the payment on
conscientious principles, and considered the law for
their support both iniquitous and infamous, and
should always come to that court to hold the law up
to the contempt of the world.
Mr. Corrie—Are you the owner of the house, or
do you hold the property upon lease ?
Defendant—l at present rent the house, but I
am about taking it upon lease.
Mr. Corrie—Then, would it not be as well that
in the contract you make you should take into con-
sideration the sum you would have to pay for
tithes Suppose some of the money you paid went
for the purpose of paying some one to sing psalms
,to some idol ? _ _ _ _ _

Defendant—That is a question for me and the
landlord, and I think it is quite irrelevant to tha
present matter. Ido not recognise the church at
all, and should like to know what equivalent I get
for my money.
Dr. Worthington—You can go to church, and
the money is for the support of curates and other
expenses in connection with the church.
Defendant—But why receive the fees through
such an iniquitous course ? Why should I be called
upon to pay for what I never use or receive ? Do
you think that the rev. gentlemen who receive my
money in the shape of tithes would like to pay me
for hats they never had. (A laugh.) They would
protest, and say they never received any hats, and
on the same principle I protest and say that for the
money I pay I receive no benefit.
Mr. Comic said he should under the present state
of the law have to make an order for the payment
of the sum demanded, but as the collector had
made a mistake in the amounts he should not order
the defendant to pay the costs.
The defendant said he would at once pay the
money, but he should like to know whether it was
proper that one of the officers should call upon him
in a half muddled state to get him to settle the
matter, and to tamper with the persons who had
summoned him.
Mr. Corrie asked who the officer was.
Turner, the gaoler, said he, knowing the expense
the parties would bo put to, had called upon them
to settle the matter.

The defendant said that two years ago Turner
called upon him to settle the matter. He did not
think it proper that the offic:‘rs of the court should
call upon parties to induce them to settle matters
instead of allowing them to come to that court to
have justice. As far as he was concerned, he should
always oppose the paying of tithes.
Dr. Worthington, in an excited manner, said it
was a disgrace to all Englishmen to oppose such a.
law which was the oldest on the statute-book.
The defendant said it was a disgrace that the
church should not support the poor, which they
were bound to do.
The matter then terminated.
• The other summonses were then, adjourned in