The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-01 00:00:00

COUNTIES.

Bedford
Berk*
Bucks
Cambridge
Chester
C,,rnwall
•Cumberland
Derby
• Devon ..... . ......
Dorset
*Durham

sex
Gloucester
Hereford
Hertford'
Huntingam.
Kent
* Lancaster
Leicester
Lincoln
Middlesex
All Eng

Notc.—That the proportion of the six northern, and five r. M.
western, Counties marked thus*, are lO3 216
And that Middlesex and Essex arc lO4 16

Cities are included in their respective Counties.
Thfoe's Tour through Great Britain. [Times

We alluded on Monday to the evidence given
by Bishop Doyle before the Committee of the
Commons, on the subject of tithes. In the
Dublin Morning Register of Monday last, au
abstract is given of that evidence, with an inti-
mation that he is to be cross-examined by Sir
Robert Peel on Friday next (to-morrow). Dr.
Doyle is said to have set out with maintaining
the original division of tithes into four parts, and
proving the position by a host of legal and
ecclesiastical authorities—that tithes and all
other Church property were held as a trust, and
that that trust had been abused. Here we may
observe that the clergy play fast and loose with
the word Church in a very edifying manner.
There is published this day, for instance, the
first number of a Magazine, under the title of
the British Magazine, the object of which is
support the interests, real or supposed, of the
clergy. In the introductory address, the editor
calls especially on those laymen who are accus-
tomed to take an active interest in the power of
the Church, " to assist in one good work—that
of inspiring other laymen with their own feel-
ings, and in extirpating from their minds one
great error—that of believing that the Church
means the clergy only, while, in fact, every true
member of the Church has just as deep an inte-
rest in its welfare and safety as the clergy them-
selves. The Church (says 11. Le Bas, in his
admirable /4ft of Wiclife), comprehends
the lay members as well as the spiritual or-
ders.' The error of supposing that the Church
designates the Ministers of religion only, ex-
hibits the clergy as an order, in whose preser-
vation the rest of society have but a slight and
amhiguous interest, and places them in a most

injurious disunion from the rest of the social
body, with which, in truth, they should be in-
discolubly bound up. It should never be for-
gotten, that the Ecclesiastical Establishment
alone does not constitute the Church, and that
both the privileges and the responsibilities of
churchmanship belong to the laity as well as the
clergy, according to the several opportunities
and stations." If the privileges and the respon-
sibilities of churchmanship belong to the laity as
well as the clergy, how does it happen, that
whenever the property of the Church is men-
tioned, the clergy are so anxious to sink the laity ?
It is Mr. Cobbett who observes that the army,
the navy, and everything desirable is called the
King's ; the debt alone is the nation's. The
clergy will have no objection to throw the re-
sponsibilities of churchmanship on the laity ; but
as to the privileges, we are somewhat sceptical ;
at all events, we are pretty sure that the privi-
lege of participating in the Church property will
not be of the number allowed to the laity. The
clergy, then, are only part of the Church, and
the property of the Church was never intended
to be exclu'sively theirs. The Scotch Reformers,
who were really honest men, in that splendid
monument of their grand and comprehensive
views, the first Book of Discipline, (1560),
under the sixth head " Of the Rents and Patri-
mony of the Church," began by stating, "'lwo
sorts of men—that is, the Preachers of the Word
and the Poor—besides the Schools, must
be sustained upon the rents of the Church."
Under the fifth head, after dechring in what way
the pastors shall be provided for, they proceed
to say " rest two sorts of people who must be
provided for of that which is called the patrimony
of the Church ; to wit, the poor and the teachers
of the youth. The poor must be provided for
in every parish. . . . . Not that we are

patrons to stubborn and idle beggars, who,
running from place to place, make a craft of
begging—for these, we think, must be compelled
to work, or then punished by the Civil Magi-
strate. But the poor widows, the fatherless, the
impotent married persons, the aged, and every
one that may not work, and such persons as are
fallen by occasion into decay, ought to be pro-
vided, and have their necessities supplied by the
parish where they were born, or have remained
for any long space." The Scotch Reformers
distinctly recognised the principle, that the pro-
perty of the Church was applicable to all pious
and charitable purposes ; and the idea that that
property belongs exclusively to one part of the
Church, namely, the ecclesiastical persons, is an
abuse of comparatively modern origin. The
Scotch Reformers merely declared what had
always been the understanding of the Church.
Every tyro in Church history knows that the
clergy were long merely collectors and distributors
of the funds of the Church, and the poor alone
at first received the whole. In the account of
Dr. Doyle's evidence, he is said to have stated—
That after the Reformation the detestation to tithes
continued to operate ; and showed that, from the reign of
James the First, down to that of Queen Anne, the Pro-
testants of Ireland, and more especially the Scotch settlers
(retaining the feelings of their country,) exhibited to-
wards the tithe system an uniform and stedfast opposition.
Ile proved, by a citation from Swift, that the Protestant
gentry of Ireland were, in the reign of Queen Anne,
combined against the clergy, who were reduced at that
period to extreme indigence. He stated that a great con-
federacy was formed by the whole of the Protestant pro-
prietors against tithes; proved its continuance and success-
ful operation down to the reign of George II.; and then
referred to the celebrated Resolution of the Irish House of
Commons, in the year 1735, against the tithe of agist-
ment. He then proceeded to show that the Whitehoys,
and all other kind of boys, derived their political and
perpetually renovated existence from the tithe system ;
and quoted Lord Clare's description of the condition of the
peasantry, in which (being then Attorney-General) he
stated they were ground to powder.'

Is the object- of the' establishment of a
Church to keep a country in a state of constant
agitation ? Surely no one will maintain such a
proposition. And yet the connection between
tithes and disorder is, in Ireland, somewhat
more obvious than that between Tenterden Steeple
and Goodwin Sands. Would the extinction of
tithes in Ireland add to the disorders of the
country? Would it render the people more
lawless ? This even the greatest amateur of
tithes will hardly maintain. If the patrimony
of the Church in Ireland had, however, been not
abused, by transferring it wholly from the poor
to the aristocracy—if the liberal views of the
Scotch Reformers had instead been imitated, by
making the funds of the Church available not
merely for the clergy, but the poor and the
teachers of youth—would there at this day have
been a determination of a whole nation to cease
to pay tithes ? The clergy of Ireland, instead
of being a light to guide the people to all truth,
set them the constant example of fraud and per•
jury. They evaded a positive law regarding
their First Fruits in a shameful manner. They
were bound by oaths to maintain schools—that
oath they violated. They showed that religion
was to them only a pretext for obtaisnicrirgiptpuerelfs,
They have now their reward. Their hypocrisy
now will deceive no one. The same men who
are bawling about withholding the
from the Protestants, because on certain (lays of
the week selections from the Scriptures are used
in the schools common to both Catholics and
Protestants (neither Protestants nor Catholics
being prohibited from having separate schools of
their own), are ready to applaud the hanging
of all who give the Scriptures to the poor blacks
of our colonies. All these turnings and double-
ings are understood ; and they will fail of their
intended effect. Bishop Doyle does not claim
the honour of having provoked the resistance to
tithes, for he deems it an honour. He stated—
" That to him had been ascribed the merit (for HQ he
c,e3ed it) of having excited the existing resistance to this im-
post. To that honour he did not consider himself entitled,
although he should not hesitate in declaring, that, to the
last moment of his life, he should persevere in employing
all the means which, with a due regard to the law, could
be used, in order to produce the abolition of a tax against
which the feelings of the people had revolted, and which
was incompatihle with the interests of the country. fie,
however, ascribed the manifestation on the part of the
people of their batted to tithes to a variety of circum-
stances, which hid concurred in producing a strong and
incurable sentiment throughout the entire country."
The evidence on the subject of tithes will do
much good. We trust the clergy will not be
backward in vindicating these claims ; for we
have always found their labours (however in-
tended) highly conducive to the cause of truth.
The more they stir, the better it will be for the
• people. So long as they were obstinately silent
regarding their property, the public were at a
stand ; but now that they furnish statements,
things wear a better aspect.—Morn. Chronicle.

BEAUTIES OF THE COURT OF CHARLES 11.
It is not generally known, we believe, that the engra-
vings which form this brilliant and tasteful collection of
portraits, are executed from copies made by Mr. Mart-
rip-, from the original pictures, expressly for her Royal
Highness, the !ate Ilmented Princess CHARLOTTE. The
last published part of this work (which oue more part will
shortly render complete) contains the Portraits of Lady
BELLASYS, Mrs. NorT, the Countess of SuNnitaLiNn,
and Mrs. MtnnLETorr ; and among others the Memoirs of
Miss LAwsoN, the Countess of CHESTERFIELD, the Coun-
tess of ROCIIF.STER, :Miss BAGOT (afterwards Lady FAL-
MOUTH), and the Countess of

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 29.

SMITH V. NETHERSOLE.

His Loßoststr gave judgment in this case, in
which a motion had been made to discharge a writ
of ne eseat regno, which had issued against the de-
fendant, smirked with the sum of 6,000/. The
plaintiff, in his affidavit, had described himself as of
Sittingbourne, Kent, merchant ; whereas it was
proved that he only went these for a few days at the
time of swearing the affidavit ; that he was not, nor
ever had been a merchant; and that he had been
residing at Boulogne for the last five years. With
reference to the amount of the plaintiff's claim upon
the defendant, which arose upon long unsettled ac-
counts, it was stated in the answer that the plain-
tiff had offered to accept 2,00(11. as a compromise
of his demands. An objection arose on the ground
of the plaintiff's non-residence in this country, and
of his not being, as he alleged, a merchant. In the
case of " Hyde v. Whitfield" (19 Vesey),LordiEl-
don had refused to grant the writ, because the plsin-
tiff, notwithstanding he had correctly stated hia re-
sidence, was not domiciled within the jurisdiction
of the Court. But the circumstances of the present
case were not confined to the point of foreign re-
sidence. If all the facts now before the Court had
been known when the writ was granted, it would
never have been marked with the sum of 6,000/.
It was not in the power of the Court to make terms,
or to direct security for costs, as was the practice of
the Courts of Common Law. Under all the cir-
cumstances of this case, the writ must be discharged
with costs. In arriving at this conclusion, his Lot d-
ship did not wish to be understood as deciding that
a writ of ne eveat regno should, in no case, be
granted on the application of a party residing beyond
the jurisdiction.