TOPICS OF THE DAY.
ROBBERY OF THE CHURCH BY THE LANDLORDS.
Tau Church of England is about to lose a portion of its super- /Mons revenue. Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposes that in future the claims of the clergy on the landowners for tithe shall be reduced, in some instances 25, in others 40 per cent. No stipu- lation is made for the preservation of vested interests. The parson may be reluctant, but he will he compelled to yield. Any tithe-payer in his parish may call for a valuation of the tithe during the last seven years; and if it shall appear that within that period the average payments have been equal to nine-tenths et the gross value of one-tenth of the produce, they will be knocked down to the maximum of 75 per cent. of the gross value; while, if they have equalled or exceeded the minimum of six-tenths, or tie _per cent. they will not be raised one fraction. Now we call attention to this proposal, not for the purpose of arguing its equity either pro or contra. Where the tithe-owner, by a threat to take his dues in kind, (which most farmers dread and dislike above all things,) has succeeded in obtaining as much as, or more than, the full measure the law awards him, the ope- ration of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S measure will be severely felt: on the other hand, in those instances where the tenant has been liberally dealt with, the bill will be acceptable to the tithe-owner : we are inclined to think that few, if any, will find their incomes increased by it, as it rarely happens that 60 per cent. of the gross 'value is not peirl over In the clerical er lay improprieter. But he ibis as it may, is it not evident that a compromise is about to be made? Voluntarily or by compulsion, the tithe-owner is to give lip a portion of his lawful dues to secure payment of the re- mainder: that is the principle of Lord JOHN RussELL's bill,— which bill, the Standard assures us, is closely copied from Sir ROBERT Parris of last session.
The Church, then, is to be the spoil of the landowners. It matters not to what extent the robbery is to be carried ; the
" spoliation principle is recognized in dealing with the property of the Church of England. Ay, and the appropriation principle
is recognized also. That which is taken from the Church is not indeed to be applied to any purpose connected with religion, or religious education ; it is reserved for no such good end. It may go to swell an income wasted in profligacy : it may be used to bribe the voters of Ipswich or Evesham.
Sir ROBERT I Notts exclaimed against the danger of the prece- dent that would be established by the bill (as if there were not precedents in plenty already for despoiling the Church) ; but we do not find that either Sir ROBERT PEEL, or Sir EDWARD KNATCH- sum., who spoke in the debate after Sir ROBERT I teems, pretended lobe at all sensitive on this point. PEEL, indeed, chuckled over the resemblance of Lord Jonses bill to his own.
How does it happen that the principle of this measure, which is certainly not inferior in " atrocity" to that of the Irish Church Bill, has provoked such slender disapprobation from the Tories?
Where was Lord STANLEY—where the godly GRAHAM—when it was so coolly announced by Lord JOHN RUSSELL? We suspect that Mr. HARVEY was not far wrong when he declared, that the bill " would convert a body of political opponents into a body of adMiring friends."
" Nothing, certainly (be added), could be better calculated to secure the ap- ?louse of the landed interest, than a measure which, at one blow, declared that oi all cases 25 and in some cases 40 per cent. should he given up to the land, of that property which he had always maintained was the property of the public. Notwithstanding the constant paid which the country gentlemen no doubt maintained against the encroachments of self-interest upon their judgment, he istuld not help thinking that the noble lord's bill would he sine of thou support. fan all hands it was allowed that the commutation itself would bea great benefit. But those who thought with him that all the property of the Church. after cam was taken amply to provide for the service of the Church, should go to the Mlle, asked why the landlords were to derive the advantage which the bill promised them?"
The Irish Church Bill provided that part of the revenue taken kola the Church should be devoted to the purposes of National Education. Had that measure been so framed that the landholders Woe would have gained by the loss of the Church, it would before new have been the law of the land. The reception of Lord JOHN RussELL's scheme is only one proof among a thousand that the eatery against the Irish Church Bills of the two last sessions was llippocriticul—that regard for the Church had nothing whatever to de with the opposition of by far the greater number of those who spoke and voted against it. We hope that the public will not forget, when a bill for abolishing the sinecures and other abuses of the Church of Ireland is again brought before Parliament, that the real cause of enmity to that measure is the diversion of a portion eC Ecclesiastical revenues to the national benefit—to the purpose of providing moral and religious instruction to the poor and igno- mut : a transfer of the whole to the pockets of the landlords with- w ! deduction would silence opposition. Had Loi d Jon st RUSSELL frope,ed that of the sums deducted from the tithe payments to the English clergy, part should be made over to a Board of Education, what an uproar would have been raised in the House As it is, rime and RNATCHBULL were complaisant; STANLEY, GRAHAM, JOHNSTON, AGNEW, PLUMPTEE, LEFROY, and the whole corps el " Saints," were silent ; leaving the preux chevalier of ant iquaied absurdities, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, to prose to half-empty benches, ware cutlets and claret were under process of "appropriation " In Bellamy's kitchen, by the disinterested friends of the Church.
Previous page
