The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We are sorry, from last night's proceedings
in the Lords, to infer—for there are no grounds
to justify more than inference—that it is Lord
Grey's intention to enforce the payment of tithe
to the Irish clergy. The design, upon the face
of it, appears so extraordinary, that the quomodo
will be to us a matter of extreme curiosiy. In
the Commons, a warm discussion arose on the
legality of the fees demanded of the Irish magis-
trates for renewing their commissions. Payment
has been resisted by several magistrates, "to
whom," as Mr. Stanley expressed it, " 2/. 13s. 6d.
were dearer than the peace of the community."
In strict propriety, we think the fee ought not
to be exacted, especially as several eminent men,
both professional and unprofessional, doubt its
legality ; but while we admit that the sum de-
manded is absurdly large as a compensation for
scribbling a few words, yet we cannot sympa-
thize with the feelings of those who, in the pre-
sent disturbed state of Ireland, can withhold
their services for the sake of disputing a point
which might as well be discussed after payment
as before. At all events, we do not see how,
after Lord Althorp's undertaking to reduce the
fee, the Irish magistrates can exhibit any further
opposition.— Times.
Mr. Goulburn's attack on the Administration,
because of the expenditure of the last year ex-
ceeding the revenue, appears to have had a re-
sult somewhat different from the hopes of that
Right Hon. Gentleman. It is in vain for the
Ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer to contend that
Lord Althorp had made predictions with regard
to the revenue which had not been realized ; it
was retorted on him unmercifully, that he had
done the same to the amount of 550,0001., on
the single article of the spirit duty. It was still
more vain for him to boast, that now, for the
first time, there had been an excess of expendi-
ture above revenue, when he had it thrown in
his teeth that for successive years, while the
Tories were in office, a real deficit had
been covered by a mock and fictitious surplus,
founded on the most iniquitous misrepresenta-
tions of the actual revenue ; that money had
been borrowed with one hand to pay the deficit
in the other ; that money paid by the Bank, and
purchased by long annuities, had been returned
in their treasury accounts-as so much income re-
ceived ; that notwithstanding all their tricks and
devices there had been, in 1823, a deficit of
nearly 3,000,000/. ; in 1824, above 1,000,000/. ;
in 1825, 3,125,000/. ; in 1826, 6,747,000/. ;
in 1827, 6,603,000/. ; that not until 1828
had it fallen to 959,000/. ; in 1829, to
807,000/.; and it was only in 1830 that a real
surplus existed of 978,0001. Yet Mr. Goul-
burn had the courage to affirm that this year of
a Whig Administration was the first in which
the cost had exceeded the revenue ! Let it be
remembered, moreover, that the year 1831 was
that in which the reduction of taxes had been
carried to the furthest point of indulgence that
the country had experienced for the last 25
years ; and that upon this year of diminished
revenue had fallen expenses not incurred nor ap-
proved of, but strenuously opposed, by the pre-
sent Ministry while in opposition,—expenses
for foolish and extravagant jobs, such as canals
to serve for fortifications in Canada, and palaces
for ridicule at home. But for nothing was Mr.
Goulburn so ill prepared as for the downright
simplicity and honesty with which Lord Althorp
admitted the precise extent to which he had
been mistaken in his calculations of last Oc-
tober, nor could any thing have happened of a
nature so truly terrible to the whole race of
financial quacks and mystifiers, as the declaration
that the present Government wanted, and would
establish, such a degree of clearness in the
public accounts, as must enable every man of
sane mind throughout the kingdom to under-
stand clearly its financial situation and concerns.
There was another point which Mr. Goulburn
might have perceived,—namely, that the circum-
stance of all the world most calculated to para-
lyse speculstion, commerce, and consumption,
was that state of feverish alarm into which the
country has been plunged for the last ten months,
by the flictious turbulence of the very set of men
who are now united with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman in a conspiracy, to found upon their own
return to office, an entire overthrow of every pro-
spect now cherished by the people of England
in favour of a redress of Grievances. The great
contrast is, that we now have to rely upon up-
right principles of finance, embarrassed some-
what in their operation by the occasional and in-
cidental errors ; whereas, instead of it, we might
have an accidental conformity to right principles,
hut a systematic disregarding of every thing be-
yond appearances, artifices, and expedients. We
are happy to hear that great savings and retrench-
ments are contemplated, particularly in the navy
department, by the abolition of the Victualling
and Navy Boards.—Times.
Had General Dalbiac, as a military prosecu-
tor, confined himself, in his reply on the case of
Captain Warrington, within the proper limits of
his duty, and having expounded, the principles
of the law military, and applied those principles
to the facts given in evidence, stopped there, nor
presumed to set himself up as an oracle of the /au;
of England, we should have left his speech to
the commentaries of the regimental mess-rooms
and military club-houses, without interfering with
the business of those logicians of the sword who
would be prepared to dissect it before it wascon-
signed to oblivion. Wtaen we find, however,
that the Gallant General, foreetting that, before
a Court-martial, he should have limited his ex-
cursive eloquence to such topics as a Court-mar-
tial was competent to decide upon, wandered
into speculations touching the nature and pro-
perties of constitutional law,. and endeavoured
to identify the latter in certain important parti•
eiders with the law military, we fear our silence
might be taken as an acquiescence in so dange-
rous a doctrine ; and,. therefore, we not only
enter our protest against the General's pernicious
dogmas, but state our reasons. Stripping the Ge-
neral's positions of the rhetorical flourishes which
he used ad captfindum, like a zealous advocate,
for the purpose of making an impression
against the accused, we find he has laid it down
that the military power has a legal right to in-
terfere, without the authority of a Magistrate, to
suppress serious riots ; and that, if need be, the
military power may put the rioters to death.
Let us look at this doctrine as a question of
actual law, and then as a question of common
reason, applied to the principles of a free Con-
stitution. If the military power has a legal 1
right of its own accord to volunteer to suppress
riots, or other serious disturbances of the public
peace, and to put the King's subjects to death,
such a legal right must Ce conferred either by
common taw or bY some statute of the realm.
It is not given by the common law, which, ac-
cording to Coke and Hale, and the oldest and
hest authorities, gives such a right, or rather im-
poses such a duty, upon sheriffs, conservators

of the peace, Justices, and constables, and in-
demnifies them against the consequences; am,l,
there is one reason why the common law could
not give such a right. It must be borne in mind
that the common law is that unwritten law which
has been established from time immemorial ;
but a standing army, or a mercenary army
,at
all, separate and apart from the rest of the
King's subjects, and governed by laws pe-
culiar to itself, is a comparative novelty to
our Constitution; and, consequently, the com-
mon law could never have conferred any legal
rights on a body of men so constituted, of
whose existence it knew nothing. Accordingly,
the common law authorises the Sheriff, Jus-
tice, or constable, to raise a competent number
of persons, or call out the posse conzitatus, to
suppress and capture rioters, rebels, and the
King's enemies ; and in the two latter cases a
private person is authorised to arm others to
suppress rebellion, &c. : but Hawkins says that,
in case of riots, it is extremely hazardous for
private persons to proceed to such extremities,
lest, under the pretence of keeping the peace,
they cause a more enormous breach of it. But
no text-writer on common law has ever advanced
the monstrous proposition that, because in some
extreme cases a private man might arm himself,
and cause others to be armed, to protect the
public peace, therefore it was allowable to a sol-
dier, living under martial law, to do the same
thing. We know that the sophism has been
used by Sir James Mansfield, Lord Ellenbo-
rough, and more recently by Chief Justice Tyn-
dal—all three more known as prerogative than
constitutional lawyers—that what was allowable
to a private person to do in the case of dan-
gerous riots, is allowable to a soldier, because a
soldier, as such, loses none of the rights of a
citizen. But, in the first place, it is exceedingly
doubtful at the best whether a private person
could arm himself by the common law, without
the command of the Sheriff or other Magistrate,
to suppress any disturbance of the peace short of
actual rebellion ; and, in the next place, sup-
posing that he could, there is no analogy be-
tween the situation of a citizen, subject only to
the civil laws of the realm, and that of a sol-
dier, who is bound to obey other laws, neces-
sarily made in derogation of the ordinary laws of
a free State, by which he is made a mere passive
machine, whose duty it is to obey the will of his
superiors in all things,whether for or against the
Constitution of his country. So that if he
dare deliberate, when he is ordered to act, he
forfeits his life, which plainly proves how un-
true is the dogma of the Judges whom we have
mentioned, and how absurd is the consequence
they would derive from it, when they gravely
declare from the judgment seat that a British
.
subject, by becoming a soldier, puts off none of
the rights of a citizen. Under the Mutiny Act
and the Articles of War he puts off every right,
even that of life itsef— the greatest right of all,
which may be taken from him without the in-
fringement of any of those criminal laws—nume-
rous as they are—by which the life of a private
citizen is declared to be forfeited. As to the
opinions of Judges, we must not, at all times.
take them as the doctrines of the Constitution.
We might instance the opinions of the Judges
in Hampden's case, in favour of the illegal im-
post of ship-money, and the length of time dur-
ing which general warrants were judicially acted
upon as legal, though afterwards declared to be
illegal and unconstitutional. As to what Sir
James `Mansfield says of the posse comitatus
being, in ancient times, chiefly composed of
tenants who rendered military services, how does
that affect the argument if the posse comitatus
could only be summoned to quell a riot by the
Sheriff, or some other civil authority ? Besides,
the tenants who rendered military services were not
living under a code oflaws distinct from those which
affected their fellow-citizens—there was no Mu-
tiny Act then—no articles of war : there was, in-
deed, a domestic militia, that sprung from the bo-
som of the people, and returned to it again—but
there was no standing army—no barracks—no
marked line of separation, as there is at pre-
sent, between the character and the duties of
the citizen and the soldier. Having shown that
the military arm of the State is not authorised
to quell riots or tumults, much less to put the
offenders to death, without being empowered so
to do by the civil power, we ask, does the statute
law invest the military force with an authority so
dangerous to the State, and so embarrassing to
soldiers themselves ? We say, without fear of
contradiction, there is no statute which has ever
conferred such authority. We know that the
statute 34th Edward 111., cap. 1, which enlarges
and particularises the rights and privileges of
Sheriffs and other Magistrates in suppressing
riots, and preserving the peace, gives no such
powers to soldiers ; nor the 13th Henry IV.,
cap. 7, which gives Under-Sheriffs the same
authority, in certain cases, as Sheriffs ; nor an
older statute, the 17th Richard 11., which gave
to " others, the King's Ministers," as well as
the Sheriffs, to raise the power of the country ;
nor the 2d Henry V., which defines who are
liable to be pressed into the posse comitatus ;
nor the 19th Henry VII., which relates more
particularly to the mode of punishing rioters ;
nor—to pass over some intermediate statute—is
there any authority given to the military force
to interfere to suppress riots by the Ist
George 1., cap. 5, commonly called the Riot
Act, which expressly provides that the orders
and proclamation to disperse shall proceed from
the Sheriff, Justice of Peace, Mayor, limier-
Sheriff, Bailiff, or other civil Magistrate of the
county or town corporate. Thus there is neither
common law nor statute to sanction the dange-
rous doctrine of General Dalbiac, that the mili-
tary arm of the State may interfere, without the
command of the civil power, to suppress rioters,
and, if need be, put them to death ! Now,
leaving, the consideration of positive law aside,
let us take a glance at this doctrine under the
light of common reason, anti let us ask if it can
be in any degree compatible with the principles
of a free Constitution. The force of a mob,
when it has broken loose from the restraints of
order, is indeed a dangerous thing ; but what
renders it sometimes terrible for the moment
makes it contemptible afterwards—namely, the
want of organization and directing intelligence.
If the military power be permitted to put.down
mobs, and attack rioters even to death, without
being under the necessity of receiving commands
from the civil Magistrate, the whole peace of the
country, at all times, is placed not
.under the
protection of the law, but the controul of the sword;
or, without any act of the Legislature to that ef-
fect, the country pro tanto is placed under mar-
tial law—men may be put to death, without
Judge or Jury, at the discretion of, perhaps, an
infuriated soldiery, who, being under no civil re-
straint, and being themselves, by the necessary
inference of this monstrous doctrine, the sole
Judges of the emergency, which authorizes them
to shed blood, may commit slaughter to what ex-
tent they please, and have no dread of any un-
pleasant responsibility. We believe that Ge-

neral Dalbiac never calculated upon the probable
consequences of his .own doctrine, which would
eventually convert this free Constitution into a
Government essentially military and despotic.
But the sage founders of our civil polity guarded,
with the jealousy of a far-sighted wisdom,
against the public peace being protected by any
force that was not set in motion, regulated, and
coerced, by the responsible authority of the civil
Magistrate. Besides, in what a situation would
such a doctrine place military men, by subjecting
British Officers to contradictory duties ; making
them serve two masters, giving at the same
time opposite commands—the military superior
saying " Don't move until you receive my
orders ;" the law of military discretion saying
" Move immediately without waiting for orders."
If he obey the latter, the former may put him
upon a Court-martial to answer the act of in-
subordination with his life. If he obey the
former, the latter may indict him for refusing to
aid and assist the civil power, when called upon
even by a constable. Surely, under such cir-
cumstances, a soldier's duty would be as difficult
to be understood as by the articles of war it is
accurately defined, by resolving all his duty, ex-
cept when commanding in chief, into the one
simple element of servile unreflecting obedience
to the commands of his military superior.—
Morning Herald.

The speech of Earl Grey in the blouse o
Lords last night on the subject of Irish tithe
will afford greater satisfaction to the country than
any declaration that the Government has hitherto
made of its views and intentions. The altered
tone of the Noble Premier on this vitally-inte-
resting question amounts to a candid and honest
admission of former error, for which every friend
to the Protestant Establishment will give him
credit. He has discovered, and we yet trust the
discovery is not made too late, that nothing is
to be gained from submission to agitation and
sedition. He has seen that conciliatory lan-
guage addressed to democrats and agitators has
no other effect than that of increasing their pride,
their insolence, and their power, and that the
first concession made to the violence of the ene-
mies of an established institution is but the first
step to the surrendering of that institution un-
conditionally into their hands. Earl Grey,
we rejoice to find, has now assumed that
ground upon which alone the Government
of a great empire ought to deign to take its
stand ; that ground which it were well had been
chosen in the first instance. His Majesty's
Ministers no longer deem it prudent to proclaim
that because a clamour is raised against the law
of tithe, and resistance is offered to it, the law
must therefore at once be revised and altered to
suit the views of the malcontents ; they have
now resolved first to enforce obedience to the
law, and then to inquire into the grievances
complained of ; to demand strict compliance
with the laws at present existing before in any
way legislating anew on the subject. The au-
thority and the force of the State is to be ex-
erted if necessary to maintain the rights of the
Protestant Clergy ; and we are convinced that
as soon as this determination is known in
Ireland, more will be thereby effected towards
restoring tranquillity in that distracted country
than would have been accomplished by years
of mean submission to audacious agitators,
and never-ending concessions to the turbu-
lence of the multitude. The loyal and gallant
Protestants on the one hand will doubtlessly
see reason to be satisfied with the explicit an-
nouncement of the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government. They demand only justice,
and, ready as they are to meet force by force if
other means of redress are denied them—inca-
pable as they are of submitting to have their
rights extinguished in the midst of clamour,
their chief desire is that the question at issue
should be decided peaceably and according to
calm reason. When the Catholic tithe-payers
on the other hand are made aware that resistance
to the laws will no longer be suffered, and that
wrong-doing will no longer escape punishment,
there is every ground to expect they will ac-
knowledge the propriety of doing their part
towards the re-establishment of peace. They
will perceive that continuancy must tend to pro-
long the duration of the very evils of which they
complain, and that without securing the smallest
benefit to themselves it will perpetuate, the dis-
union of their country.—lllorning Post.
No man of any sense could ever suppose that
any Government of this country, constituted as
every Government must be, of the Aristocracy,
at any time contemplated any material Reform in
the Church. Believing, however, as we do, that
the desire for Reform in the Church is at least
as extensive among the people as the desire for
Parliamentary Reform, we confess we are not
sorry to discover that the opponents of Ministers,
by attributing to them that which they know to
be without ground, have overreached themselves,
and contributed to the result which they depre-
cated. In the House of Lords, last night, there
were some curious revelations on this subject.
Lord Plunkett, to whose sons the Church has
proved a most lavish mother, and who will not
be accused of any hostility to tithes, said, " he
would observe, that from the nature of the Go-
vernment, it was absurd to suppose that the Go-
vernment could ever entertain any intentions un-
favourable to tithes. The notion that it was,
had not proceeded from the silence of his Noble
Friend (Earl Grey), but from injudicious ob-
servations which had been put forth in different
quarters.—(Hear, hear.) He was not sur-
prised that the lowest classes of the people should
entertain a notion that the Government was
willing to sacrifice the rights of the Church from
any notice being taken of the subject. He was
not surprised that they credited every report ; but
he could find much excuse for them in their igno-
rance and want of education.
" These expectations, at the same time, were encou-
raged by persons higher in rank—by persons connected
with the clergy, who had led the people by their asser-
tions to believe that the Government was opposed to tithes.
He regretted very much that persons of high rank and
high in place should lend their names to raise suspicion in
the minds of the people. It was not to be supposed that
those who deprecated his Majesty's Government could
really believe that the Government would not support the
Protestants of Ireland.--(Hear.) Nothing more un-
wariantahle was ever inferred, if that conclusion were
drawn from the appointment of the Committee.—(Hear. )
Nothing more dangerous, nothing more misehievous, was
ever propagated ; and'it had not one fact to support it.—
(Hear, hear.) It was truly said, that in many places the
people had resisted the payment of tithes, and there Were
found persons who said that it was the interest of the
Government not to support the clergy. Such expres-
sions, used against the Government, went a long way in
some people's minds to warrant suspicion. But it was not
only the interest of this Government, it was the interest
of every Government, to support and protect the rights of
the Church. Persons who said that the Government was
never supposed that any
propagated slander.—
vthnee
nut(H e\avr,eb favourableceaerr.t)i
nt
Govern-
ment of this country ever wished, in the case of
the Church of Ireland, to introduce any change
which would render it one whit less a great
engine of corruption. Conceiving, as we do,

that the establishment of a Protestant Church,
endowed with an enormous revenue, for a Ca-
tholic population, is a monstrous abuse ; that the
Irish must always view such an establishment as
a badge of their slavery ; that it must be a con-
stant cause of irritation, and that the resources
of England must be in consequence wasted in
endeavours to preserve the tranquillity which
such a badge of degradation must constantly tend
to disturb—are not sorry to find that the abettors
of the abuse have been caught in their own snare.
This is often the case with over-cunning men.
The consequence of the diligence used to pro-
duce the belief that Government was hostile to
tithes has been to confirm the wavering, and to
render it, we believe, no longer possible for any
Government to restore things to their former
state. It was the general determination of the
Scotch to resist tithes that led to their settle-
ment in Scotland on a footing which, perhaps
more than anything else, has contributed to the
prosperity of that country. The people of Ire-
land, with that example in their eye, will not be
led aside either by Lord Plunkett, or by the
pretended fanatics, but real corruptionists, who
have, by their invectives, produced results of
which they never dreamt. Lord Grey, on in-
troducing the subject to the House, said, under
the circumstances of the case and the times, he
had thought it of urgency to bring forward a pro-
position to improve the condition of the clergy
of Ireland ; but at the same time he had never
for one moment thought of looking at any mea-
sure which would not secure the clergy of Ire-
land in their just rights, and remove the com-
plaints caused by the present system." We
sincerely believe his Lordship. We believe that
his object was to strengthen the hands of the
clergy. But, unfortunately, the effect does not
always correspond with the intention. No per-
son would wish to deprive any clergyman of his
rights. But individual clergymen and an eccle-
siastical corporation are quite distinct. The ob-
ject of Government ought not to be an exclusive
attention to the preservation of means of enjoy-
ment for the privileged classes. Property was
given originally to the Church in trust for the
poor. At this present day society is everywhere
threatened by the destitute state of the poor of
Ireland, who have a claim to a large share of the
wealth of the Church. The law with regard to
Church property, as is ably shown in an excel-
lent treatise by the late Baron Wood, has been
administered on what may be called infamous
principles. Thank God, it is not in the power
of the present or any other Ministry to continue
these abuses. But we are not sorry that Minis-
ters have disclosed their sentiments, because we
deem it of importance that the large body of
opponents of Church abuses, in England as well
as Ireland, should see what they may and what
they may not expect. Lord Grey said—
" He thought it necessary to state, that while in Ireland
a combination to resist the payment of tithes was con-
tinued, and while it continued spread, be felt it was
absolutely necessary, before anything else, that the legisla-
tive authority and the law should be vindicated, and that
measures should he adopted to secure the successful exertion
of the power placed in the hands of Government. That
power certainly should be and had been exerted to secure
the rights of the Clergy ; and if it were found insufficient,
he had no hesitation in saying, that he would propose to
their Lordships to give further powers to the Govern•
ment, if that were rendered necessary to suppress the
resistance."
Lord Wicklow said, " he believed that the
proposition for appointing a Committee, accom-
pained by such a declaration as had that night
been made by Earl Grey, had produced a great
deal of evil, which the Committee would never
remove." This drew from Earl Grey a declara-
tion, that " as the misrepresentation continued,
he felt disposed to avail himself of the oppor-
tunity more emphatically, but not more sin-
cerely than on former occasions, to declare,
that it was the resolution of the Government
to employ all the authority with which the law
invested it, and exert all its power, to maintain
the just rights of the clergy." Lord Ellenbo-
rough, who has always been a sort of Marplot,
tried, to use a homely adage, to help the lame
dog over the stile, observed, that " in Ireland
the people were accustomed to think that all
rights were only concessions to force." This is
true. The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert
Peel told them they had a dreadful horror of
civil war, and that though they would have re-
sisted emancipation if they could, they conceded
it, because they could not resist it without re-
conquering Ireland. The Irish are an acute
people, and what is more, a singularly audacious!
and enterprising people. But Lord Ellenbo-
rough, who assisted Government by the above
seasonable observation, endeavoured to assist
them further by the observation, that a law to
attach the person must be passed. The following
is singularly curious :
"He was not aware if this had been done. He thought
it was desirable that the clergy should be enabled, by some
speedy and cheap process, to attach not only the property,
but the persons of the corn tithe-payers, and to recover
their dues. As the law now stood, there was no power
of breaking up the combinators, as nothing could effect
that but a cheap and speedy method of attaching the per-
son. He would venture, likewise, to suggest, that if the
law was at present sufficient, that some strong measure
should be passed to enable the Government to prosecute
any individuals arraying themselves against the payment
of tithes. It was not only illegal to resist tithes—and for
that certainly the parties might be prosecuted—but there
should be likewise a power of proceeding against those
who advised such a measure; for such advice, whether
illegal or not, must tend to subvert the tithe system.
These were matters which he thought worthy of consi-
deration, and which implied that some new law was ne-
cessary. It was necessary to strengthen the hands of the
owners of tithes, the hands of the clergy, and the hands of
the Government, in order to enable them to make head
against the combination."
The whole of the Irish to be clapped in
prison ! We have in England a regular gaol
population of 120,000 ; but we have not room
for one tithe of the Irish prisoners for tithes.
What folly ! However, Government are threat-
ening all manner of prosecutions. We shall
see.—Morning Chronicle.
The attention of the House of Lords was last
night specially drawn to the very embarrassing
question of tithes, when Lord Grey took an
opportunity of correcting some mis-statements
which had gone abroad respecting the feelings
and intentions of the Government. His Lord-
ship stated briefly, so far as we are able to un-
derstand his language, that whatever the Go-
vernment might ultimately do respecting the
tithe system in Ireland, it was its determination
to put the law in force, as it existed, even by
force, if required, while it did exist; and we
assuredly expected no less from the Noble
Premier, who has always been the champion
of the Church, as well as of his own order.—
But it is right to tell Lord Grey that the
when
nthepayment of tithes
enforced,in even by force.—
donceanbybew
It
to overcome a party in any country ;
buteilsreiteslhaaensgrye is no gainsaying the voice of
a whole people in money matters. The Eng-
lish Church in Ireland has an undoubted right
to its tithes, according to the law as it exists at
present, and its tithes it ought to have, while the
present law continues ; but, unfortunately for the
clergy, that law can find no one who is disposed

to carry it into effect. The clergy may use the
legal means of recovery—they may summon—
they may distrain, and we pity the necessity of
their being compelled to adopt such harsh pro-
ceedings ; but when the goods, properties, and
chattels of the distrained are put up to auction,
there is no one to buy ! and what then
is to be done ? Of what avail can the em-
ployment of force be in such a case ? None
The clergyman may employ and indemnify a
bidder, or he may bid himself for the articles
seized ; but what is the consequence ? No
one will buy them again from him, and in the
midst of wealth he becomes a starved and
proscribed man. We quarrel not with the de-
termination of the Government to enforce the
law respecting the refractory subjects of the
realm in the matter of tithes—it is their sworn
and bounden duty to do so ; but at the same
time we trust that, next to the Reform Bill, their
best attention will be given to the question of
tithes, not only in Ireland, but also in this
country. They may rest assured that there is
no subject which has contributed more to the
progress of national discontent than the payment
of tithes. In this country they ought to be
commuted for a permanent tax of equal value—
in Ireland they ought not to exist, even in a
commuted shape, except where three-fourths of
the parishioners actually belong to the church.
How, let us ask, can it be proved to be reason-
able, that a whole parish, with only a few excep-
tions, should contribUte to the support of a
Church from which it receives no benefit, and
which it does not venerate ?—Morn. Advert.