The Sun.
London, England, 1828-12-26 00:00:00

would merely enable the cultivator to bring to
market ten-tenths of produce at the rate at
which he now brings nine-tenths—that is, it
would lower prices to the consumers. Rents
would fall in Scotland, because the Scotch
Landholder enjoys a bonus of the tithes at pre-
sent, his tenant paying him both rent and tithe.
An abolition of tithe would not, therefore, be-
nefit the Aristocracy, though it is possible that
they, as Landholders, think that it would.
" The abstract affection," says our contemporary,
of the aristocracy of Ireland for the national
Church, however, has not, it must be owned, been
acknowledged very gratefully by the Churehma
who have had occasion to allude to the matter; from
Dr. Swift to Dr. Phelan, the great writers upon
Irish affairs have been any thing but grateful for
this abstract affection, and perhaps the case of the
agistment tithe abolition may be thought to afford
them some justification."
The above may be true, and yet our proposi-
tion not be invalidated. The landholder who
sees tithe-free land pay so much more rent than
his own, conceives that if all land were tithe-free,
all land would let higher by the value of the
tithe. It is by no means an obvious truth that
the abolition of tithe generally would leave rent
as it is, though this truth is not questioned now
by economists. The Irish Landowners enter-
tamed the notions of their age. In countries
possessed exclusively by the actual cultivators,
the abolition of tithe would be a gain to the land-
holders; for, uniting in themselves the double cha-
racters of cultivators and consumers, they would
have for their own consumption the tenth quarter,
which would otherwise go to the priest. At
present the cultivator's interest, as a consumer,
is comparatively trifling ; as a manufacturer of
food for sale, he must be reimbursed by tithe as
well as his labour, otherwise he could not go on.
All, however, that we have to do is, to show that
the Aristocracy have an interest in the main-
tenance of the Irish Protestant Establishment,
as enabling them to divide more money among
themselves than their share of the advantage.
which they could derive by any sther appropria-
tion of the Church property. When this is ad-
mitted, it will hardly be disputed, that whether
the Irish Protestants amount to fifty, or five
hundred thousand, or five millions, the Church
will be preserved as long as there is a House of
Peers, and the Borough Proprietors possess a
majority in the House of Commons.—Monting
Chronicle.
In England (and we suppose it is the same
every where else) reason comes always very
poorly off when opposed to riches. "hose who
are dissatisfied with any practice will seldom suc-
ceed in making converts to their opinion, so long
as that practice is in favour with respectable,
that is, rich people. On the other hand, as po-
verty is universally hated, there is a strong dis-
position to see in an unfavourable light what is
practised by the poor. A reformer will always
find people willing to second bins when he con-
fines himself to the views of the lower orders;
and when he ‘lishes to expose the absurdity of
any practice in favour with the rich, it will al-
always be of great importance to exhibit it first in
connection with a poor man. If we were to hear
that the Siamese or Japanese, or the Abys-
sinians, piqued themselves on their posses-
sing the domestic values in a superior de-
gree, and had female chastity in high admira-
tion, and were to hear at the same time that
a Siamese, Japanese; or Abyssinian Lord, on
discovering a deficiency in the virtue of chastity
on the part of his wife, coolly drew out a bill
for what he conceived the value of the use of his
wife, and called upon a Court of La :w to enable

him to recover it, we should uo doubt think it
wonderful that human nature could exhibit such
glaring inconsistency. And yet what is this in-
consistency, but what is • exhibited every day in
England ? An English gentleman discovers
that his partner has been prevailed on to allow
some other gentleman to participate in the ety-
ment of her charms. He draws up a bill for
the value of what he has lost by this trespass on
his connubial rights, which he entitles " crimi-
nal conversation," and he calls upon an English
Jury to give him a verdict on proving his case.
Foreign nations are not a little astonished at this
cool way of estimating the loss of domestic hap-
piness in pounds, shillings,. and pence, and ri-
dicule has often been applied to it, without,
however, producing much effect in the way of
diminishing the general approbation of the prac-
tice. An Irishman having heard it stated, no
doubt, that the English law made no distinction
between rich and poor, inid that nothing was so
common in England as for rich men to make
charges in Courts of Law for the use of their
wives, and having, moreover, had the misfortune
of experiencing a trespass on his wife, ventured
into Queen-square on Tuesday last, when the
following proceedings took place, according to a
report in a Morning Paper of Wednesday :
" Yesterday an Irishman, who gave his name
Michael Lawless, presented himself before the Ma-

- .
gistrate, Mr. Marriott, to apply for a summons
against Andrew Jones.
" The applicant said he had made out his com-
plaint in writing, and handed a paper up to the Ma-
gistrate, stating that he was ready to swear to the
truth of every word.
" The following is a copy :
' May it please your Worships—T, Michael Law-
less, have laid a bill before Andrew Jones, which he
refuses to pay. The circumstances are peculiar, and
as follow :

To 11 weeks' washing and lildging £1 9 0
For illicit connection with my wife dur-
ing the time he lodged with me, and re-
presented himself as her brother, during
which period they abused my rights as
a man, for which damage I charge 0 11 0

" This testimony I can make good on oath Si 13 0
MICHAEL LAWLESS.'
" No sooner had Mr. Marriott read the above ex-
traordinary bill, than he indignantly ordered the ap-
plicant out of the office, who at first attempted to
reason with him on the moderation of his charge.
" Mr. Marriott—Turn that fellow out of the
office; I never heard of such a piece of impudence
in my life.
" Applicant—Your Worship, I am willing to
swear to the facts.

" Mr. Marriott (to Gillmore, the chief constable)
—Turn that fellow out instantly. Whereupon Gill-
more immediately ejected the applicant out of the
office, who complained in bitter terms that he could
have no justice for his wife's infidelity."
It is barely possible that Mr. Marriott would
feel that a Lord applying for redress under simi-
lar circumstances ought to he taken by the
shoulders, and turned out immediately from
the place be supposed him to pollute by his pre-
.
• Bence. Though not fond of betting, we would
however bet something that Mr. Marriott's eyes
were only opened to the indecency of a husband
making money by the infidelity of his wife, on
seeing the practice resorted to by a poor Irish-
man.
The only difference between the care of
a Lord and Michael Lawless that we can see is,
that the one goes into the Court of King's
Bench or Common Pleas, and submits, through
his Counsel, his wrongs to a Jury ; and that
Lawless goes before a more humble tribunal,