TOPICS OF THE DAY.
TITHES.
THE right and duty of Parliament to deal with tithes and other Church property, as Public property, is obstinately denied by the sticklers for old abuses ; but it is earnestly insisted upon by all discreet and patriotic men, clerical as well as lay. The existence of this right, indeed, has been virtually admitted by the heads of the Church in repeated instances. Every application to Parlia- ment for Pluralities Bills, Commutation Bills, &c. is a proof that there is no other court competent to control ecclesiastics and make laws for the regulation of their property. If it were otherwise, why trouble laymen at all about the matter? or why apply to Parliament to reform their own peculiar courts ?
The members of the Methodist Conference are the legal owners of the property of their sect. The conveyances arc made out to them. They hold the title-deeds. They can close the doors of their chapels, and pull them down, or sell them, if they think it best to do so. They never come to Parliament for fresh power. Now, those who wish to make good their assertion of the incom- petency of the Legislature to interfere with the distribution and management of clerical property, on the ground that it is as sacred and inalienable as that of private persons, should be able to produce the title-deeds of their churches, and lands, and tithes, in the same way as the Methodists. They might then manage their affairs as snugly as a conclave of Cardinals when hatching a new Pope, or a Committee of Bank Directors meditating the pur- chase of five millions of Exchequers. But the notorious fact is, that each incumbent has only a life interest in his living; and that interest cannot legally be made the subject of bargain and sale. It has been said, however, that the Church, in her coiporate capacity, can do what she likes with her own. Indeed? let her officers then produce her charter of exemption from the control of King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled. If it be not forthcoming, it will be held to exist only in the perturbed imagination of her crackbrained disciples. But it would be a waste of time and patience to continue the argument against an unfounded assumption, which all sagacious and clear-headed Churchmen have long since abandoned. Parliament, then, will proceed—not to abolish tithes so as to make a present of them to the landowners, but to commute them, and to substitute in their place a better and more rational and convenient mode of paying the clergy. In doing this, exist- ing rights will be duly respected; and we trust that there will be no niggardly and discreditable attempts made to drive a hard bargain with an amiable body of gentlemen and their families, who lie in fact at our mercy. But it will be no easy matter to make an equitable arrangement. The Government will find itself beset with difficulties at every step. It will be a perplexing business to obtain a fair and correct valuation of the tithes which are to be commuted. For instance, how will the annual income derivable from the mall tithes—the milk, fruit, pigs, and poultry—be computed? how many years' pur- chase shall we pay on such a precarious rental ? We .do not envy the valuing commissioners this part of their labour. It is evident that they must proceed with great care and caution ; and it is equally clear, therefore, that considerable time must elapse before any very material alteration in the present system can be effected. We recommend patience and forbearance to our fellow-countrymen: they will have great occasion for both these virtues. We shall hear the sound of the drain ecclesiastic in every town and village. Al- most every incumbent (for incumbents are like other mortals) will value, and honestly too, his income, both actual and prospective, at a higher rate than will be affixed to it.; and be will consider himself aggrieved by the new arrangement. The Minister must be intrepid, cautious, and just in his proceedings towards both parties to the bargain; and in that case, all candid Englishmen must be prepared to afford him their steady and active support. We strongly insist, then, upon the right of the Legislature to control the clergy, because they are public servants; and to make a different distribution of ecclesiastical property, because it is the property of the nation. We as strongly, on the other hand, deny the right of Parliament arbitrarily to interfere with the tithes held by the lay impropriators, because these tithes are private property. There are two grounds on which some seek to justify such inter- ference. The first is, the tyrannical mode in which bluff King HARRY "turned Church lands to lay." The titles of laymen to Church property are said to be unsound. The original owners are termed no better than the guilty receivers of stolen geniis from the hands of the royal robber. But be that as it may, time and the law of the land have sanctioned those transactions. The present holders have, for the most part, given a valuable consideration for their property. To despoil them of it now, would be a perfectly atrocious and unheard-of procceding,—especially when these tho- roughgoing gentry have no idea whatever of restoring it to the Church.
But, secondly, it is said with more appearance of reason and justice, "'We do not wish to deprive the lay impropriators of the fair value of their tithes; but as they are injurious to agriculture, and productive of infinite injury to the public weal, it is fit and proper that they should be commuted along with those held by the clergy." Now this is dangerous ground to go upon. The in- terest of the National Debt is oppressive and injurious to the interests of the conntrY : are we therefore justified in reducing it without the consent of the public creditors, or interfering in their mode of spending their dividends—even although they consume them in debauchery and extravagance ? If once we admit the right of the Legislature arbitrarily to interfere with private pro- perty on so extensive a scale, there is no saying what mischief will ensue.
The obstacles in the way of Parliamentary interference with the Church property in the hands of laymen, are indeed so numerous, that we are persuaded any attempt of the kind would, at present, prove abortive and impracticable. This property is in very many instances tied up by family settlements, and conveyed to future generations, and made subject to contingent remainders without end. When these and other difficulties which might be men- tioned are taken into consideration, we think that the necessity and propriety of at least postponing all interference with the rights of lay impropriators, will be apparent to most thinking men
Previous page
