THE Irish Church is to be sacrificed! Ten of its Bishops cut off at one blow! Such is the wholesome and the moderate measure upon which the Ministers plume themselves; and which they commend to the nation as a sample of the wisdom and the justice to be expected from a Reformed Parliament! Does this not prove the progress of the Movement? Does it not give damning confirmation to all that has been asserted respecting the dominion of the mob; and evince, to demonstration, that Ministers are but the puppets of a faction, by whom they will be cast aside as soon as they have served those ulterior purposes upon which the faction are bent, and which Reform was only considered valuable, in as much as it was calculated to answer?

With the reader's leave, we will give that measure which either is, or is about to be, the law of the land, a quiet and dispassionate consideration. And we will, before we proceed to other matters, take the liberty of presenting it in a point of view in which it did not enter into the contemplation of the honourable House, in which it originated, to consider it. It has been called a measure of relief. Of relief to whom? Not, assuredly, to the suffering poor. And yet it is on their behalf, and for their benefit, it is said to have been enacted.

We will begin with that important part of the Bill, which proposes to lighten the country of the burden of parish cess.

Parish cess is a species of taxation which falls upon land and houses. All prudent persons, when they are about to become the renters of land, or the occupants of houses, make as accurate an estimate as they can of the various imposts to which they are subject; and, as these are high or low, the rent is low or high accordingly. Thus, if a farm of ten acres be worth three pounds an acre, but subject to a tax for parish cess of one pound an acre, a prudent farmer will not offer, and we may add, an honest landlord will not consent to

take more than two. The same with respect to houses. If a house be worth forty pounds a-year, and be liable to a tax of three pounds for parish cess, its rent will be but thirtyseven. Now, what must be the effect of abolishing parish cess? Simply, that the rent will be raised by precisely that amount. And who will be the gainers? The landlords! the gentry! the members of that honourable House who passed the Bill! Thus it is, that they consider the poor! When Judas Iscariot was about to betray the Saviour, the sufferings of the poor were on his lips,

but what was in his heart? Was it mercy? Was it charity? Or, was it covetousness and plunder? The Church is now about to be deprived of a large portion of its patrimony, upon the plea of relieving the distresses of the labouring classes. And how are they to be relieved? Simply by transferring what is thus taken to the coffers of those who do not want it!

It is true, during the currency of present leases, the middling farmers will have the benefit of the measure. But as soon as ever the leases have expired, that benefit will be transferred to the landlord; who will not be such a fool as to let the farmer have the ground for the rent with which he was satisfied while it was liable to parish cess; as it will not be more unreasonable to make him pay the increased rent, when the cess has been removed, than it would be the diminished rent, while the cess continued in existence.

Now, if this be the true view of the question, why was it not put upon this ground in Parliament? Why did not the patriots, who received it with so much joy, give it its true character? Why did they not tell the people that they rejoiced in it simply because it put so much money into their own pockets? They may have a reason for this, but scarcely an honest reason. The people were to be deceived into the belief that they were to be the gainers; that the parish cess was con

to confer " a new value" upon it, by this act of sacrilegious appropriation! And, all the while, he tells his delighted and wondering hearers, that there is no new principle advanced, nothing of innovation attempted, which should excite a scruple in the most timid alarmist!

the Bishops' lands. These have been always held by lay tenants under leases for one-and-twenty years, renewable for ever. They constituted a species of property regarded nearly as valuable as freehold estates; and which descended from generation to generation, with an equal facility, and almost an equal certainty, as that which attends the transmission of any other inheritance; it being always the interest of the Bishop to renew the lease upon moderate terms. But all this is now to be changed. The Government are to assume the dominion of the property, and to arrogate to themselves a power of devising it in fee to its present or other proprietors! Pause we for one moment, to consider all that is implied in this. Church property at once changes its character! It becomes, in truth, no property at all! Great proprietors are suddenly divested of the title-deeds of their estates; and converted into stipendiaries to be subsisted upon a pittance derived from their own possessions! We know no difference, in principle, between this case and the compulsory seizure of the estate of the Duke of Sutherland, or the Duke of Norfolk, and compelling these noblemen to subsist upon certain rents which might be allocated for their maintenance; those by whom their properties had been forcibly taken, assuming the dominion over the remainder! It is, in point of fact, a more violent and arbitrary act of power than Henry the Eighth was guilty of, when he got possession of the Abbey lands. For, in every instance in which he so indulged his rapacious and tyrannical humour, he had the excuse of saying that the holders of these lands were formally convicted of crimes for which they deserved to lose them. But he was not even satisfied with that. He required, moreover, a solemn, and, apparently, voluntary surrender of them; and could not feel secure in the possession, until the old proprietors stood self-divested of their rights! He never dreamt of the simple and summary process of Lord Althorp, who, not only without pretending a crime, but without assigning a cause, unhesitatingly assumes the mastery over what belonged to others, and even contrives

But, the "new value!" Let us bestow upon that a little consideration. It is clear, in the first place, that the property is not to have any new value for the Church. Its old possessors are not to benefit by it. Sufficient for them if they receive their present amount of income out of the proceeds of the estates of which they will now have been stripped, in order that they may be improved by this magical confiscation! The plain fact is simply this:-Those who have been, hitherto, trustees of Church property, assume the dominion of it, and treat it, in all respects, as their own ;-and, having rendered it more productive than it was before, by some process not within the competency of its former proprietors, consider it no more than equitable that this excess of value should belong to them, and that the State and not the Church should profit by the increased proceeds of ecclesiastical property thus augmented! Was ever fiscal jugglery more manifest, or more contemptible! Would Lord Althorp act thus with respect to the property of any child, of whom he might be the guardian? Would any of the Ministers act thus with respect to the property of any other corporate body? No. Because common sense and common honesty would stare them in the face, and public indignation would scare them from an attempt, equally odious and reprehensible. But the Church, the poor, proscribed, insulted Church, may be seized upon, and submitted to the financial dissecting knife, even with the applauses of those, who, if the same iniquitous proceedings were adopted towards themselves, would be loud and vehement in their recriminations!

Doubtless, the Ministers will experience every facility in the application of their new principle to the property of the Church. It is a concern which no one regards, and the clergy are meek and uncomplaining. Indeed, we are very well aware

that the only complaint which the Government will hear, and from which they are likely to experience any serious embarrassment, is, that they have not gone far enough. And we are ready to give them credit for the degree in which they have abstained from exercising their power, against a body so completely at their mercy. The clergy are excluded, by positive enactment, from seats in the House of Commons, which is filled with their active and malignant enemies; who, no doubt, feel their power, and are determined to use it.

proper to do so and so in any one instance, and they will very soon learn for themselves, that, in similar instances, the lesson may be repeated. It is true their instructors may intend nothing less than that their own doctrines should, ultimately, be turned against themselves. But thus it is that men are ofttimes taken "in the crafty wiliness which they have imagined," as it were by the special direction of a retributive Providence; thus it is, that they are compelled" to eat the bitter fruits of their own devices;" that what was unjust in the case of others, becomes, in their case, the strictest justice; and that, when the inventors and promoters of crime and robbery, thus become the victims of violence which they have themselves provoked and stimulated, all men will be ready to exclaim, "Nec ulla lex æquior est, quam fraudis artificem arte perire suâ."

It is now, it seems, an approved and familiar principle, that all which the Government can make of any property more than it at present produces, belongs to themselves! That is, that the State, not the individual who is the owner of the property, may claim it. Such is the principle which is nakedly and glaringly set forth, and acted upon, to the very letter, with a most reckless hardihood and impudent daring! Come, then, and let us see whether it does not apply to other cases, besides that of the property of the clergy. The Duke of Sutherland possesses an estate, through which Government finds it expedient to run a canal, or to establish a rail-road. Will not the value of that estate be vastly increased by such an improvement? And to whom does "the new value" belong? To the Duke of Sutherland? No; it is not he that has produced it. It belongs, according to the new doctrine, TO THE STATE; for it is by the State the improvement has been effected. Now, would the nobility or the gentry be losers or gainers by the assertion of a principle such as this? For, by it, they must be content to stand or fall. . They cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold with the same breath. If they apply it, for their own purposes, to the clergy, they cannot refuse to have it applied, for other men's purposes, to

Lord Althorp tells the honourable House that any one may agree to the measure which he bas proposed, without in the least committing himself by the assertion of any principle that has not been long since familiar and approved. Indeed! But that is not quite so plain a case as his Lordship supposes. Is it an approved and familiar principle that Government may take into their hands the management of private or corporate property, and trade upon it for their own advantage? Is that an approved and familiar principle? For that is precisely what they have done. If it be, the "terrarum domini" may well tremble for their possessions! For there is not a nobleman or gentleman in the land whose inheritance may not thus be seized upon, and converted, by a similar process, to the uses of the State, as far as it is possible that it could be so converted. It is idle to say, that it is not very likely any such thing will be done; that no Ministry dare venture thus to outrage the feelings of the people; that the very instant any such demonstration of violence was made by any British Government, the whole country would be up in arms against it; and that their power would not last a single day, when it became manifest that it was to be thus dangerously exerted. We doubt the truth of all this; but, false or true, it is nothing to the purpose. We only at present contend for the applicability of a principle, not for the precise time when, or the precise manner in which it is to be applied. Only let the principle be admitted, and it will not be long before it is practically realized. Let men be taught that it is reasonable and

themselves. If it be good, inasmuch as it serves to convert the estates of the Bishops into a fund for the payment of parish cess, it must be good inasmuch as it may serve to convert the estates of the gentry into a fund for the liquidation of the National Debt! And when those whose estates may thus be converted are the very individuals who have employed their ingenuity in constructing this drag-net of Ministerial plunder, surely there are not many who can lament that, by their own artifices, they have been circumvented.

There is another point of view in which the new principle may be received; andwhich, with all due deference, we beg to submit to the judgment, or rather, indeed, to the conscience, of Lord Althorp. If the Government are entitled to pocket all that they may make by improving other men's property, are they not fairly liable to all the losses which may be incurred by the holders of such property, through their negligence, or mal-administration? Assuredly they are. They cannot establish the right in the one case, without acknowledging the responsibility in the other. If they enter into any partnership at all, they must enter into it "for better for worse." If they lay claim to the gains, they should make good the losses. They cannot say, "head, I win; harp, you lose." They cannot say, our contrivances have effected all this profit; therefore we must partake of it," without also coming forward to indentify the parties aggrieved for any injuries that may have been occasioned by their culpable neglect, or gross mismanagement. Come, then, and let us see whether, while Lord Althorp brandishes his new principle, for the destruction of the Church, we may not avail ourselves of a corollary from that principle, for its preserva

66

tion.

What is it that has occasioned the rapid depreciation of Church property in Ireland, during the two last years? The outrageous opposition to the collection of tithes. And what caused that to proceed to the dreadful length that set all ordinary legal remedies at defiance, and compelled his Majesty's Ministers to bring in a bill, during the operation of which the Constitution must be suspended? Manifestly, the supine

ness of those very Ministers; their neglect of the principle" obsta principiis;" for had they, as they were advised, taken prompt and early measures to subdue the resistance to the payment of tithes, that resistance would never have become formidable, and the property would be as valuable as ever. If, therefore, the depreciation may be traced to their neglect, or even to an error in judgment on their part, Lord Althorp's principle makes them accountable to that amount to the holders of Church property in Ireland!

Before, therefore, he proceeds to claim the benefit to which he considers himself entitled, for the projected improvement of their estates, let him settle this little difference in the previous account which subsists between them. His Lordship has the reputation of an honest man ;— and he will not, we trust, at all events, act like a sharper. He deals with honest and honourable men who have been humbled by calamities, of which his measures have been the principal causes. Let him, then, give them the advantages which flow from the application of his principle, in the one case, before he takes advantage of it in the other. Let him indemnify them for losses and injuries already sustained, and they will, gladly, relinquish, for the uses of the State, all that may be made of the possessions of the Church, above what they yield to their present holders.

Is not this fair;-is not this reasonable? If it be not, there is neither equity nor reason in the proposition of his Lordship. But if the character of that proposition is to be maintained,-if a Reformed Parliament, in their omnipotence, resolve that the proposition is wise and righteous, they can scarcely quarrel with its legitimate offspring, or deny that the other proposition, so clearly deducible from it, is wise and righteous also.

His Lordship, therefore, is not a subverter of the Church! He is not, as the Radicals boast, or the Conservatives fear, the contriver of an expedient for its overthrow; but the originator of a discovery for its security and preservation! "He came forth with an intent to curse, and, lo, he hath blessed it altogether!"