Let us turn to Kildare and Leighlin, the focus of determined resistance to this system :-Are there here no abuses to shock the natural feeling of justice, and irritate men, by particular iniquity? In the union of Paulstown and Gorebridge, the very first on the list, there wereCatholics, 5261 Not-Catholics, 289 What were the tithes ?—£2,040 a-year. But how many churches? Actually four churches for the Episcopalians in 289 Not-Catholics. That is, adopting the same rule as before, one church to thirty-six members of the Establishment. The burthens of this unhappy parish stood thus :— The tithes; the original expense of four churches, each probably not much under £1000; the constant taxes for their repair, solely at the discretion of a few Protestant parishioners; the fixed salaries for sextons, pew-openers, &c. &c. And yet the actual pressure of all this, though surely not inconsiderable, is nothing to the rage of heart occasioned by the reflection that all of it must be paid according to the pure will and pleasure of another; that, over the amount, the mode, the time, the party burdened has no control. It is the leer of men going to vote away his money-it is the demand of the sum, enforced by the instant seizure of his cow-it is the utter injustice of the whole transaction, that burns, with a slow, dry fire, the heart of the peasant. It is true, indeed, that, on many of those occasions, Protestant parishioners, from none but the most honourable and disinterested motives, throw themselves between the Catholic population and those exactions; but it is questionable whether this does not aggravate the disease. At any rate, a whole nation, in whom we wish to preserve an erect, independent, self-relying spirit, should not hang on the bounty or humanity of any individuals. The noble feelings that are engendered in a generous mind, by sympathy with the oppressed, and the glow of honour that flushes the face of a manly protector, are much too dearly purchased by the inferiority of millions, and the loss of self-respect in a whole nation. The reader has probably, if he ever dipped into the present situation of tithes, heard of Graigue, in the diocese we have now arrived at. It does not necessarily follow, that, where tithes are low, the pressure may not be considerable, and the irritation great, because the breaking out of the ulcers is determined by a variety of local circumstances. We may, however, be assured that, cæteris paribus, the indignation will bear proportion to the magnitude of the injustice. In Graigue there were,— Catholics, Not-Catholics, 7441 127 Tithes, £1600 a-year, with two houses and glebes, independent of a church cess of £60 a-year! Killaben (same diocese)— Catholics, Not-Catholics, Tithes, £1400 a-year. Geashill and Ballycane (same diocese) Catholics, Not-Catholics, 5855 326 7559 1140 Tithes, £1705 a-year, with a glebe of 91 acres, besides a church cess of threepence an acre on 22,500 acres. Castletown (diocese of Killaloe) Catholics, 2798 72 Tithes, £1081 a-year, with a glebe of three acres, and a church cess of twopence an acre on 15,000 acres. Kinvarra (diocese of Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora)— Catholics, 4376 Tithes, £360 a-year! The clergyman being paid, we suppose, for educating himself and his wife. Yet even this solution fails in Kilmoon Catholics, Tithes, £300 a-year! and off 769 Catholics! 769 To these we could add, from the same prolific source, numerous instances of equal oppression, but our limits warn us to stop. Enough has been stated to demonstrate the iniquity of the system. Indeed, the only thing singular is, that it should have been tolerated so long. “But the march of the human mind is slow." Great abilities, great evils, and extraordinary circumstances were required to create that policy of national combination of which the abolition of tithes is the most striking, as the Association was its most splendid result. For the latter, in the history of popular struggles, it will be vain to seek a parallel. The former is as extraordinary in character, and as complete in success. A system, the growth and reproach of centuries, has been overthrown in one short year-by submission to the law. We hear, indeed, of hurlers' meetings, of proctors beaten, and threatening notices; but it is a great mistake to suppose that these are any more than the eruptions which attend any great change in the constitution of the body politic. So far from being the result of the system, they are directly opposed to it in spirit and practice,—they did even thwart its success. The system is the very reverse of violence, it is humble submission to law,—it is the extremity of passive obedience, but dictated by the most determined spirit of resistance. It is a practical servility, excusable only because we know it to be the fruit of an untameable liberty. The cattle are seized—impounded—brought to auction; but a plague seems upon them—no one will bid a shilling——— no one will buy them. TITHE had been branded on them by the owner the moment they were seized. A Roman could not shun with greater horror any thing devoted to the infernal gods than a whole people the cattle branded with that single word. They are driven to Dublin under a guard of police, perhaps soldiers, and there shipped for Liverpool; but their evil fame has gone before; the obnoxious word is on them, and there too no buyer can be found. The consequence is, that no cattle are seized, and tithes are, therefore, at an end. Every person, not interested in their continuance, with whom we have conversed, acknowledges this. A provision for the number of clergymen really required by the wants of Protestants, is just and necessary. A liberal provision for the present incumbents none are disposed to refuse; but the tithesystem, in its present amount and distribution of income,-its prodigal salaries,—its scandalous sinecures,—its mass of jobs, is over. The Irish people have decided the question for themselves; and we know that a powerful body of their representatives share their indignant determination. In this post-mortem inspection of tithes, a rational and useful curiosity would justify us, without resorting for excuse to that natural feeling which has been so vividly expressed by the poet— pedibusque informe cadaver Protrahitur. Nequeunt expleri corda tuendo But another motive governs us. Much still remains to be done. Parliamentary sanction is necessary to legalize the abolition of tithes decreed by the Irish people. The very forms of justice must be rigidly observed ; and we were anxious, by a detailed practical examination of the system— by clearly exhibiting the various particular instances of its oppression— to detach from the cause any honest man whom ignorance or prejudice may still range on the side of so much iniquity. THE UPPER HOUSE. "True," says the stickler for things as they are," there are many and striking anomalies in the state of the representation, and in the whole frame of the British Government; but forms and regulations which appear irrational and dangerous to the simple men of the present generation, are in reality mysteries of wisdom and beneficence, handed down to us by our sagacious and venerable ancestors." The assertion, that with all its apparent inconsistencies, the machine works well, has been so often and confidently repeated, that it looks like heresy to call in question the truth of the dogma. It is rather, however, surprising that the mischievous conduct of the Peers has not provoked some prying reformer, not having the fear of coronets, ermine, and lawn sleeves, before his eyes, to apply the boasted test to the House of Lords itself. In ordinary life, when an improver meets with an obstacle which baffles all his efforts, he becomes very inquisitive into the intrinsic value of this insurmountable impediment to his operations; and however indispensable to the working of the engine, this incorrigible part of the machinery may always have appeared, he is compelled, at last, to inquire if it may not be superseded with advantage. Let us institute a similar course of inquiry into the functions of the Upper-House of Parliament. To fix the value of the House of Lords as a part of our legislative machinery, we have only to ascertain, whether, in the instances in which it has rejected the bills passed by the LowerHouse, it has proved itself the safeguard of the rights and liberties of the country, or an obstacle to improvement. The following examples of the working of the Upper House are extracted from Aitken's Annals of the reign of George the Third, a period sufficiently extensive and important for the purpose of the present investigation. In the domestic transactions of each year, the author notices every bill of national importance, passed by the Commons, and rejected by the Lords. In 1772, The Bill brought in by Sir George Saville for relieving dissenting ministers from the obligation to subscribe the doctrinal articles of the Established Church, passed the Commons with an inconsiderable opposition, but was rejected by the Lords, at a second reading, by a majority, including proxies, of 102 to 29. In 1773, The same Bill again passed the Commons, by the same majority, and was once more rejected in the House of Lords. In 1780, A Bill passed the Commons to prevent members of Parliament from engaging in Government contracts, but was thrown out by the Lords. In 1783, Mr. Fox's East India Bill passed the Commons; but while the bill was before the Lords, influence was used to alarm the King, who put a note into the hands of Earl Temple, to the effect, "that he should deem those who should vote for the bill, not only not his friends, but his enemies; and that, if Lord Temple could put this in stronger words, he had full authority so to do."-The result was, the Ministers were left in a minority of 79 to 87. In 1792, A Bill for the gradual abolition of the Slave Trade passed the Commons, and was lost in the Lords. In 1794, Mr. Wilberforce's motion for the abolition of that branch of the Slave Trade, which went to the supply of the islands and territories belonging to foreigners, was carried in the Commons by 63 to 40, but was thrown out in the Lords by 45 to 4. In 1808, Mr. Banks brought in a Bill for preventing the grant of offices in reversion 1; which having passed the House, was thrown out by the Lords. Having, however, been again introduced, with a limitation to one year, and some other alterations, it was suffered to pass into a law. In 1810, Mr. Banks made a motion to render perpetual the Act for preventing the grant of offices in reversion; the bill passed the Commons, but was thrown out, at the second reading, by the Lords. It must be kept in mind that there is no selection here, but that every case, mentioned by Aitken, is given, whether it makes for or against the Upper House; so that, in striking the balance, the reader has only to consider how many of the preceding instances of rejection were advantageous, and how many of them were pernicious, and how great would have been the amount of loss sustained by the empire, had not the superior wisdom of the hereditary legislators interfered. It ought likewise to be borne in mind that no period was more fruitful in Acts of Parliament encroaching on the liberty of the subject ; in suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act; in gagging bills; in green bags filled by spies and informers, and their profligate employers; in acts for crushing the rising liberties of foreign states, and squandering the resources of the country. How many of these were stopped in their progress, and rejected with scorn, by this boasted safeguard against the rash acts of the Commons? Verily, the Upper-House is guiltless of the sin of Quixotism in favour of suffering humanity. In vain shall we look over the dreary waste of their legislation, during the long reign of George the Third, for a solitary instance of their interference to protect the country from the unwise, the wasteful, the profligate, the despotic acts, hatched in such abundance in the Lower-House. Their guilt is, however, not merely negative. They have not only refused to exert their power in opposition to the aggressions of the Commons upon civil and religious liberty. We have seen them stand, when the minister of the day, by accident, permitted a measure, favourable to humanity or the interests of the people, to escape from the LowerHouse, prepared, with their hereditary powers, to give it the coup de grace in the Upper. Not only was the individual measure strangled, but the hopelessness of any attempt to legislate in favour of freedom, was made manifest. Had some small portion of these bills been permitted to struggle through the Upper-House, philanthropic and liberal representatives might have been encouraged to originate, and perhaps, to carry measures still more beneficial. But, seeing that all their anxious toil, should it even be successful in the Commons, was sure to be defeated in the Lords, rational men ceased to vex themselves with what they knew would prove labour in vain. No people pay greater deference to rank and wealth than the British. They are proud of their Corinthian capital, and predisposed to confide in its integrity and wisdom; they will submit to absurdity and injury, when proceeding from members of the ancient aristocracy, which, in a plebeian, would rouse their scorn and indignation :—it is curious to observe this feeling manifesting itself, not only in the obsequious Tory, but in the philosophical Utilitarian, and the violent Radical. This national prejudice, if we may so call it, gives to the Peers an immense influence for good or for evil. They have the power to confer incalculable benefit on the ranks below them; and, were they even in a slight degree to prove themselves the Decus et tutamen patriæ, the people would be lavish in their praise. It is not true that the lower orders entertain a feeling of hostility to the higher ranks; but the long continued pressure of poverty and suffering which they consider as in some degree attributable to the measures of Parliament, sympathising rather with the prejudices and interests of the Aristocracy, than with the feelings and necessities of the great body of the people, has, for some time, irritated them against an oligarchy which, most unwisely for themselves, struggles to retain a power which the mass of the country consider unjustly usurped and corruptly exercised, and which the people have determined to resume. John Bull is the most patient of all living creatures; but the insults and injuries of his rulers may goad him to gambols which they may rue. He has borne much and long, but there is a period to the endurance even of the most patient of animals. The conduct of the Peers in rejecting the Reform Bill, has left him looking with a determined sullenness at their House. They may yet appease him, and all will be forgotten. But if, instigated by the Father of Mischief, they treat with contempt the prayers of a united people, and resolve to mock them with the shadow of a representation, and to perpetuate on their necks the yoke of an oligarchy, then OFT have I felt SONNET. more deeply ne'er than now— There is a fount within, where none may see, My heart is all too busy-fond to draw A tide of thought even from the meanest things; Could every cloud of grief be now dispelled, Mind on itself would prey-its might can not be quelled! GERTRUDE. |