Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

who now ride in coaches, not only to walk on foot, but to work in company with those whom they seem to look upon as made for their pleasure and sport. Yet, such a measure ought not to be adopted in a hasty manner; due consideration ought to be had in the ease; it ought, before adopted, to be proved to be just and necessary; and, as I am decidedly for the measure, and would cause it to be adopted if I had the power, I look upon myself as bound to show, that it is just and necessary. Legal I know it must be allowed to be; but that which is legal may not always be just. Some have denied that it would be legal; and, therefore, the legality shall be proved first.

breasts of the young women to be cut off; or to cause them to be disqualified for breeding; or, to have their bodies exposed to public view, to be poked and groped about and chopped to pieces, and then to be flung to the dogs, as the carcase of Jezebel was. If laws like these were to be passed, all the world would say that they were no laws at all, and, of course, that they ought not to be regarded as precedents. But, very different is the case here, as I am now about to prove.

The whole of this property, parsous' tithes, lay tithes, college and bishops' estates, originally were held in trust by the CATHOLIC CLERGY, for cer tain public purposes, of which I shall Now, my friends, I have to show speak under the next head. But, in the you:-1. That it is legal, that it is reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., agreeable with the laws of our country, Elizabeth, and James I., all these tithes to take this property from the parsons and other property, both in England by act of parliament. 2. I have to and Ireland, were, by acts of parliament, show you, that it is just to do it. 3. I taken away from the Catholic clergy, have to show you that the measure is and given, some to protestant parsons, necessary to the prosperity, peace and and the rest to divers persons of the safety of the nation. And, my friends, aristocracy, who hold all this property if I prove all these to you, it will be to this day. If, then, this could be leyour bounden duty to lend your aid gally and constitutionally done, why canin causing this measure to be adopted, not the property be taken away from and to be active and zealous, too, in the present possessors by act of parlialending that aid; for, as you will by-ment? The holders contend, however, and-by see, it is, after all, the labouring that all this property, even the tithes, people who suffer most from the tithes, and who, in fact, pay the whole of them in the end.

FIRST, then, to show you that it is agreeable to the laws of the country to take away the tithes and other property commonly called Church-property, I have only to state to you what has been done, in this respect, in former times. I shall have, further on, to speak of the origin and the intention and the former application of tithes, when I come to the justice of my proposition: at present, I shall speak merely of the legality of the thing. We know that when a law has been passed by king and parliament, that which is ordered, or allowed, by such law, is legal, in the technical sense of the word; if a nest of villains bloody enough to pass a law to put men to death for refusing to live upon potatoes; or, to cause the

belong to the holders, as completely as any man's estate, or goods, belong to him. If this be the case, the tithes (to confine ourselves to them for the present) were unlawfully taken from the Catholic elergy; it was an act of rapine to take them from that Clergy; and will our parsons allow that their possessions are the fruits of rapine?

But let us look at the part of the Catholic Church property that was taken away and given to the aristocracy; I mean the great tithes of many parts of the kingdom and the abbey lands; and let us take, as specimens, the Duke of Devonshire's great tithes of twenty parishes in Ireland, and the Duke of Bedford's ownership of Covent Garden, which latter spot belonged to the Abbey of Westminster. If either of these were called upon to prove his title to these things (and he may be so called on by

any man if tithe be demanded of him for the one, or toll for the other), he must go back to the acts of parliament (and not very far back) in virtue of which he holds his estate. And will either of these Dukes deny, then, that these acts of parliament were lawful; will they deny, that they were agreeable to the laws and constitution of the country? will they acknowledge that they hold these estates from the effects of an act of rapine? Oh, no! They must plead the acts as good, as agreeable to the law of the land; and, if they do this, - they declare, that to take away any part of the property of the church, is a thing that may be done without any violation of the law of the land,

There is a distinction to be made between the property which was given to the aristocracy and that which was given to the Protestant parsons and bishops and colleges; and there are persons who contend that the former is now become private property; and, of course, that the Dukes of Devonshire and Bedford have to the abovementioned tithes and tolls as perfect a right as any man has to an estate that never belonged to the public, in the name of Church property. BURKE (the great apostle of the aristocracy!) says very much the contrary; for he says that the Duke of Bedford had no better claim to Woburn than he (Burke) had to his pension? However, this is a point that I leave without discussion, at present; and I sincerely hope that the conduct of the aristocracy towards the people may now be such as to let this matter remain undiscussed for

éver.

impudent; the thing is as plain as the fact of light or dark.

Lest, however, an objection should be made to the antiquity of those acts of parliament, and lest it should be said, that when the Church became Protestant, the tenure of the clergy became absolute, and untouchable even by the parliament, let us see what the parliament has done, in this way, in modern times, and even very recently. In 1713, and again in 1813, an act was passed to fix the sums that the holders of livings should give to their curates; that is to say, to compel them to give the curates certain salaries, or portions, out of the produce of the livings. This clearly shows that the livings were deemed public property, merely held in trust by the parsons and bishops; for, what would have been said, if the parliament had passed a law to compel gentlemen, farmers, tradesmen, and manufacturers, to pay their servants, journeymen, and labourers at a certain rate? This would have been to interfere with the distribution of private property, and would have been an act of tyranny; but, in the other case, it was an act of duty, because the parsons and bishops held the property in trust for public uses, and because it was for the benefit of the public, that those who did the work of the church should be suitably paid for their work.

Thus, then, the parliament took away, without any consent of the parties, part of the revenues of the incumbents, and, of course, part of what the patron, or owner of the advowson, called his private property. But the act of 1798, only 32 years ago, was still more comBut, as to the tithes and other pro-plete, if possible; for, by that act, a perty which was handed over from the part of the houses and lands, belonging Catholic clergy to the Protestant cler- to the Church, was taken away for ever; gy, that is held by the latter as it was was sold to private persons; and the held by the former; namely, in trust proceeds paid into the Exchequer by the clergy for public purposes; and, of course, as it was before taken by act of parliament from one set of men, and given, in trust, to another set of men, it may now be taken, and disposed of, by act of parliament, for whatever purposes may appear to the parliament to be best. To deny this is really to be

amongst the tax-money. This was. called an "act for the redemption of the land-tax." It first laid a perpetual tax on all house and land; it then enabled people to redeem their land-tax; that is to say, to purchase back part of their estates from the Government! Some did it, and some did not; but, the par

1

[ocr errors]

sons and bishops and college people were compelled to do it; and they did do it; and the money went into the treasury, and was spent, by Pitt, in places, pensions, grants, sinecures, subsidies, secret services' money, and other purposes, to carry on the war against Jacobins, Levellers, and Reformers.

So that here was, only 32 years ago, a part of the Church property actually taken away for ever, sold to private persons, and the money taken by the Government and applied to public purposes. If a part could be taken without any violation of the settled laws of the country, the whole may be taken for public purposes, without any such violation. For, surely, it would not be more unlawful to take it to pay off the Debt, for instance, than it was to take it to help to carry on a war, for the support and success of which that Debt was contracted; awar, too, in the urging on of which the Clergy were more forward and more loud than any other body of men in the kingdom.

they say to give countenance to such a claim; while, on the other hand, they say quite enough to satisfy any man that they never intended, never so much as thought of, such a mode of maintaining a Christian teacher. In the first place, our Lord declares the Law of Moses to be abrogated. He sets aside even the Sabbath.

And when the Pharisee in the parable vaunted that he paid tithes of all that he possessed, the rebuke he received is quite sufficient to show the degree of merit that Christ allotted to that sort of piety; and, indeed, this parable seems to have been used for the express purpose of exposing the cunning of the then Jewish priests, and the folly of their dupes in relying on the efficacy of paying tithes.

But what do we want more than the silence of our Saviour as to this point ? If the tenth of the "increase" (for it was not the crop or gross produce) was intended by him still to be given to the teachers of religion, would he, who was laying down the new law, have never Thus, then, it is agreeable to the laws said a single word on so important a and usages of the country to take this matter? Nay, when he is taking leave property away, and apply it to public of his Apostles and sending them forth to purposes: it is so much property be- preach his word, so far is he from talklonging to the nation, and the nation ing about tithes, that he bids them take can take it, and can do what it likes neither purse nor scrip, but to sit down with it, proceeding, as it doubtless with those who were willing to receive would, by due course of law. If there them, and to eat what people had a be any one in the world, any creature mind to give them, adding, that "the now left on earth, so stupid as to believe labourer was worthy of his hire." That that the tithes and other Church property is to say, of food, drink, and lodging, have any foundation in the laws of God, while he was labouring. And is it on and that our parsons are the successors this, the only word Jesus Christ ever of the Levites, the stupid beast will keep says about compensation of any sort; is the sabbath, I hope, and not Sunday. I it on this that Christian teachers found hope he will kill the paschal lamb and their claim to a tenth of the whole of the offer up burnt-offerings; that he will produce of a country! If this be the eat no blood, bacon, or hares or rabbits. way in which they interpret the ScripThe Levites had only the tenth of the tures it is time indeed that we read and increase, and not a tenth of the crop; judge for ourselves! Oh, no! Not a next, they divided the increase with the word did our Saviour say about tithes, r poor, the widow, and the stranger; not a word about rich apostles, but and, lastly, they had no worldly inherit- enough and enough about poor ones; ance, could own neither house nor land, not a word about worldly goods, except and indeed could have no property to to say, that those who wished to possess themselves. them could not be his disciples: enough about rendering to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, but not a word about rendering to the priests any thing at all.

[ocr errors]

No foundation have tithes or Church property on the Mosaic Law; and as to Christ and his Apostles, not one word do

In short, from one end of the Gospel intention in which the tithes originated? to the other, he preaches humility, In answering these questions we shall lowliness, an absence of all desire to arrive at a perfect conviction, that it is possess worldly riches, and he expressly just to adopt the measure in favour of enjoins his disciples "freely to give, as which I am arguing. they had freely received."

And, as to the apostles, what did they do? Did they not act according to the command of Christ? Did they not live in common in all cases where that was practicable? Did they not disclaim all worldly possessions? In Corinthians, chap. ix., Saint Paul lays down the rule of compensation; and what is it? Why, that as the "ox was not to be muzzled when he was treading out the corn," the teacher was to have food, if necessary, for his teaching, for that God had "ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel." But, is here a word about tithes? And would the apostle have omitted a thing of so much importance? In another part of the same chapter, he asks: "Who goeth a warfare at any time at his own charges?" Which clearly shows, that all that was meant was entertainment on the way, or when the preacher was from home; and, when the preaching was on the spot where the preacher lived, it is clear, from the whole of the Acts of the Apostles and from the whole of the Epistles, that no such thing as compensation, in any shape or of any kind, was thought of. Saint Paul, in writing to the teachers in Thessalonia, says: "Study to be quiet and do your own business, and to work "with your own hands as we command "you." 1 Thess. chap. iv. ver. 11. And again, in 2 Thess. chap. iii. ver. 8, he bids the teacher remember, "Nei"ther did we eat any man's bread for "nought; but wrought with labour "and travail, night and day, that we "might not be chargeable to any."

When I was a boy, or, before I had read with attention, I often wondered how our forefathers came to be such fools as to give one tenth part of all the corn, hay, roots, calves, lambs, wool, pigs, eggs, milk, greens, underwood, and of the profit on mills, and of the waters, and of the animals at pasture. That they should have been such fools as to give, in every parish, all this to one man of the parish, and that man, too, an unmarried man. I thought them great fools, and lamented that we had, hitherto, been such fools, such tame and stupid fellows, as to adhere to their laws. But, upon looking into the matter, I found that our old papas had done no such a thing. I found that they had given only a third of the tenth to the priests; another third to build and repair the churches; and the other third to relieve the poor, and, indeed, that third which the priest had, was to enable him to keep hospitality and relieve the stranger. Oh! said I, this had sense in it; it is WE, conceited we, enlightened we, who are the fools, who let the parsons take all, and who relieve the poor and build and repair_the churches by taxes, which we screw from one another, and who, while we have a mutton-bone on our tables, silently see the parsons wallowing in luxury. We, enlightened we, are the real fools.

[ocr errors]

At a meeting recéntly held in Kent, Lord WINCHILSEA was asked whether he would vote for the abolition of tithes. To this he answered in the negative, observing, that tithes were instituted by our PIOUS ancestors." Our ancestors were pious, but they SECOND: The justice of the measure. were not tame, "enlightened" fools. -It is clear, then, that tithes and clerical This is the story the parsons always revenues rest upon no Scriptural au- tell us; but, they do not tell us the thority. What do they rest upon? whole of the story. They leave us to How came they ever to be? What believe, that our pious ancestors' were they founded for? And, are they were of this same church that now now applied to the uses for which they exists; and with reason; for it would were given in trust to the clergy? Do be awkward indeed in them to extol the clergy apply them agreeably to the the piety of those from whom they took

[ocr errors]

the tithes away. But I will tell you, strangers with their own hands, in my friends, the whole story; it is short," mercy and humility; and reserve the and is as follows:-Christianity was "third part for themselves." not introduced (into England) until 600 The very motives for building years after the birth of Christ. In the churches and endowing them with tithes meanwhile it had made its way over the prove, that the constant residence of greater part of the continent of Europe, the priest, or parson, in his parish was and the Pope of Rome, as the successor his first duty; for, what was the enof St. Peter, had long been the head of dowment for else? And I state, upon the Church. In the year 600, the then authority as good as any that history Pope, whose name was Gregory, sent a can present, that for nearly five hundred monk, whose name was Austin, with 40 years after the introduction of Chrisothers under him, from Rome to Eng- tianity, no such custom prevailed in land, to convert the English. They England as of hiring curates, or other landed in Kent, and the king of Kent deputies, to supply the place of the (there were several kingdoms in Eng- parson who had the living. Our "pious land then) received them well, became ancestors" were, therefore, sensible as a convert, and built houses for them at well as pious: they required duties in Canterbury. The monks went preach- return for what they settled on the ing about Kent, as our missionaries do parsons. These parsons were, besides, amongst the Indians. They lived in let it be remembered, unmarried men ; common, and on what people gave and if we are to impute (and which in them. As the Christian religion ex-justice we ought) the institution of tended itself over the country, other tithes to the piety of our ancestors, we such assemblages of priests as that at must also impute to their piety the esCanterbury were formed; but these tablishing of a priesthood not permitted being found insufficient, the lords of to marry! We must impute this to great landed estates built churches and parsonage-houses on them, and endowed them with lands and tithes after the mode in fashion on the Continent. The estate, or district, allotted to a church, now became a parish; and in time, dioceses arose, and the division became, as to territory, pretty much what it is

now.

their piety, and, indeed, to their wisdom also; for how obvious are the reasons that the tithes never could be applied according to the intention of the founders, if the priests had wives and families to maintain!

Thus, then, if we be to appeal to our pious ancestors, and pious and praiseworthy we must allow them to have Here, then, we learn the motives of been; if the Lord Winchilsea and દ our pious ancestors" in making these the parsons will insist upon referring endowments of tithes. They wished to us to these our ancestors as examhave a priest always at hand to teach ples for us to follow as to this the ignorant, to baptize children, to great matter of tithes, we have to revisit the sick, to administer comfort, to mind it and the parsons of these eight be the peace-maker, the kind friend and things:-1. That the doctrines of the the guide of his people. Nor were Catholic Church, which our pious these tithes to be devoured or squan-ancestors endowed with the tithes, are, dered by the priests. They were di- by our present parsons, declared to be vided thus: "Let the Priests receive the idolatrous and damnable.-2. That our "tithes of the people, and keep a writ- parsons call the head of that church "ten account of all that have paid Antichrist and the whore of Babylon.them; and divide them, in the pre- 3. That the "Society for Propagation "sence of such as fear God, according of Christian Knowledge" advertise no “to canonical authority. Let them set less than fourteen separate works writ"apart the first share for the building ten by our bishops and archbishops "and ornaments of the church; and " against Popery," that is to say against "distribute the second to the poor and that very faith to support which our

[ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »