THE

YORKSHIREMAN,

A

RELIGIOUS AND LITERARY JOURNAL

BY A FRIEND.

PRO PATRIA.

No. XXIV. SEVENTH DAY, 29th SIXTH Mo 1833. PRICE 4d.

ART. L-Present Sufferings of Friends on account of Tithes, &c.Extinction of Tithes.

EXACTION, by distraints legal and illegal, continues without any abatement on the property of the people called Quakers, in support of the Establishment of the country, and its Levitical officiating priesthood. By accounts brought up to the Yearly Meeting which ended on the 6th of this month, it appears that the Sufferings' for 1832, abating Eleven pounds taken for Military purposes, made a sum of Twelve thousand three hundred and sixty-four pounds of which, Three hundred and seventy-five pounds were levied on Friends in Ireland. For the year 1831, the correct total in pounds (abating Military demands) appears to have been Twelve thousand seven hundred and thirty three of which the Irish part made Eight hundred and fiftynine pounds.

Consequently there is an increase on the previous year, on this side the water, of rather more than a hundred pounds.

The tithe taken in kind without warrant amounts, for 1831, to Six hundred and eighty-four, and for 1832 to Seven hundred and thirtyseven pounds. There is then. no relinquishment of this arbitrary and illegal method of making distraint on our members.

The Military part of the Sufferings for 1831 was One hundred and ninety-four pounds: and in this respect there is (owing to circumstances probably, and not to any interference of the Government) a great proportionate alleviation. With regard to the abatement of the sum total of the Irish distraints, it is more likely that the seizures have been postponed, on account of the present state of the country, and the prosecutor's hands being too full of other cases, than that any thing has been given up on a principle of forbearance.

ЗА

I have before me from that country an account of a series of distraints on a farmer (or grazier) made by a physician turned priest, from the year 1817 to 1819 inclusive, comprehending the demands of five years, of such a character as may be justly thought to indicate a disposition in the prosecutor to ruin the sufferer outright, and expel him from the neighbourhood. In the last mentioned year, in consequence of some unsuccessful Legal opposition made to a most exorbitant demand, the defendant is represented to have suffered to the amount of upwards of Three hundred pounds, for the tithe of a crop not worth Two hundred and fifty! I do not incline, at present, to insert in this work the details of this, or any similar statement: but the time may come, should the Legislature prove hereafter indisposed to receive evidence, and go into our case, when it may be needful for us, in justice to ourselves and our families, to publish full and authentic statements of what is done continually, in all parts of the country towards our members in distraints that it may appear we do not complain for nothing.

This Yearly Meeting was induced, by a consideration of the present circumstances of our Society, and the greater probability of success than has formerly existed, to apply to the Legislature on the subject. Two Petitions, one to each house, were drawn up during its sittings, and respectively signed (though very late and with the Meetings much thinned) by about six hundred and fifty Friends, whose residences will be found attached to their names. These documents were needful, now that the question of a Commutation of Tithes in favour of the clergy, and to the exclusion of all other purposes, has come before the Commons, to shew that the Society retains its ancient testimony unaltered; and that its members are no more prepared to surrender a portion of their estates to the Clergy for ever, than heretofore to comply with their Annual demands. The Petitioners go the length of soliciting the entire abolition of all such Imposts as Tithe, Church-Rate and Easter Offerings; and it is to be hoped, from the manner in which a beginning has now been made, that we shall not very easily take the refusal (tacit or expressed) of a predominant interest in the Legislature, (should that happen on the first application) but continue, like the poor widow in a certain city, mentioned in Sacred writ, to use importunity, year after year, in this most reasonable and Christian request, till we obtain.

In doing this, it will be needful that we carefully disclaim the intention of invading private property, or taking to ourselves that which is not, in equity and fairness, our own. I may refer in this place to No. 22, page 349, for the decided sentiment of an estimable and leading member of our Society, expressed many years ago, on the subject; and shall next proceed to say something further in our behalf, in reply to that last and, as it seems, most popular argument (since it continues to be urged after all others have failed) that Tithe is a charge on every estate in the country: which if not already bought off is allowed for in the purchase.

The Legislature having distinctly recognized a customary claim on the part of the Incumbent, Impropriator, &c. and provided for its

recovery by distraint, &c. the Friend by his passive conduct under this process admitting the Legality of the proceeding, it is plain he grounds himself in his refusal to pay on a want of equity and fairness in the demand; as well as on a conscientious scruple. And the advocate for tithe-paying here seems, also, to waive his Legal plea, and to appeal to Equity. You have bought or taken land subject to this charge at a price accordingly: therefore it is reasonable you should pay it.'

Let us join issue with him on the ground of equity and fairness, and see in what the case now consists, and whither this train of argument will lead us.

Charlemagne, it appears, thought proper by an Ordinance of his own to place his vassals at large in the like condition in which he had found the actual tenants of the Clergy-he made the farmers pay the latter a tenth of the produce of the land they cultivated. This was found a great oppression; and Louis le Debonnaire was forced, in 829, to issue an Ordinance against such persons as, to avoid paying the tithe, had left their lands untilled! See No. 1, Art. I.

In 785, two Legates of Pope Adrian, the friend and favourite of Charlemagne, accompanied by his envoy, landed in England and convoked two synods, one in Northumbria, another in Mercia. In the latter, which was attended by Offa king of Mercia, and by all the princes and prelates South of the Humber, the Pope's code of Ecclesiastical laws appears to have been adopted for the Anglo-saxon churches. The practice of Rome included Tithing, but (as it seems) still as a gift: and though we have nothing on this occasion that amounts to a positive law on the subject, it is pretty evident that the practice of tithing now invaded Britain; and Tithe became, by dint of preaching it up as matter of merit and duty, a customary demand on the part of Religious houses and the Clergy. See No. xiii, Art. I. and especially p. 199.

Of the application of what was thus obtained we, here, say nothing: people gave the tenths to the Church (so called) being taught and persuaded that it was their duty so to do: and in time it was also found convenient to let them know, that they should no longer give these to the Church at large (or to what house they pleased) but pay them to the parish Priest, or other receiver under whom they might find themselves placed.

This also failing in very many instances, because of the oppressive nature, and probably also of the manifest abuse of the impost, we have next an Act (or Ordinance) of Henry VIII, For Tithes to be paid within this realm.' The Reader will find this abridged in No. II, Art. I: and I beg to commend to his notice here (if he have not before seen them) my remarks at page 20, on its preamble.

That Act of Henry VIII (assuming that Tithe is due to God and Holy Church) is the acknowledged basis of all that Parliament has since done on the subject-whose provisions in the case we are bound as good subjects to accept, and (actively or passively) to obey.

Now for the imposition: It is a charge on my estate,-it seems. Not on the land, certainly,-against this, the lord of the soil took

good care to provide in the origin of the thing, and made it fall on his vassal. The latter finding seed and labour, &c. it is plain that the impost falls at once on his estate, not on his landlord's-on his little Capital and much industry, by means of which the crop in its season is forthcoming-but, if by any casualty, or because of his refusal to plough, there be no crop, then is there no Tithe. So much for the charge on my estate as landlord; in consideration of which it is said I bought or took my land so much the cheaper! It is in fact a charge on ME the farmer, as the priest's vassal; from which if I have been happily exonerated, I can afford my landlord a larger rent, which, (since a competitor would otherwise give it) I must consent to pay him. Or, if I be the Lessor, I may put this Levite's portion into my own pocket!

It is fair to take this question as between the priesthood and the country at large, rather than between a Tithe-paying or Tithe-free tenant, and the landlord. The advocate for an Establishment, (a consistent member of the Church of England) may indeed be pressed here on the ground of equity and fairness, to pay his tenths: they are the means by which it is upheld, and he receives (after being cheated indeed into the payment of a Poor-rate and Church-rate besides) some kind of equivalent, in the services rendered him by the clergy. I believe that he is an aggrieved party, the whole case considered-but the dissenter (and especially one in whose favour laws are provided) is a grievously injured one. There is certainly no equity in the taxing (not his land, bought or taken the cheaper for that impost, but) his capital and industry, to support that of which he cannot for conscience sake avail himself—and, out of the fund thus raised, affording him nothing towards the Ecclesiastical charges of his own way of worship: making him thus (as I have somewhere before said) a subject for tribute, but an alien as to all benefit and protection! The practice of exacting Tithe or Church-rate from a dissenter is, therefore, an anomaly in our Legislation, and a denial of every profession we make of Religious toleration and liberty of conscience. But, it is still urged, if I cease to pay this impost, and put the money in my own pocket, I am a gainer by the whole sum. I should say, simply, have ceased to lose. At whose expence in this case is my profit? It is replied at once, At the parson's. This, in the first instance; and if I do as I would be done by, in the affair, I shall consent that he either continue to receive his present income (supposing no unfair charges) during his life; or, if he prefer it, take a compensation for his term and retire. The like of an Impropriator or Lessee of Tithe.

Then comes the perpetuity of the Impost, after the death or retirement of the present holder of the Legal right of levying it. Subject to the same condition, it is plain, of being redeemed by the payer, or compulsory contributor! And to this kind of termination of the charge, I presume, every reasonable person concerned would be found willing to contribute his share of the purchase money, fairly assessed on his proportion of Tithe. To suffer every man to pocket his own advantage in the case, would make of the whole, instead of a great National

benefit, an iniquitous scramble. What is thus contributed must, therefore, go into a great National fund-and this, I suppose, most equitably and honourably to the country, if devoted to purposes connected (in a way that shall satisfy tender consciences) with the promotion of learning and good morals, if not of Religion itself.

Every denomination would then have to maintain its own Ministers and places of worship, and to exercise a Christian discipline within its own pale: receiving through Parliament its proportionate aid in funds from the National Stock, at the discretion and request of a board composed of all the denominations-or, should this appear the more expedient method, raising its funds from its own members.

Is there any thing in all this that does not consist with perfect equity and fairness?

Where men contribute generally, (though it may be largely) to a fund for the general benefit, it may be said on the broad scale that no one loses; and special cases, made out, admit of special compensation. There are many reasons why this should take place in the extinction of Tithe, rather than an appropriation of the value to the payer by himself. The principles of equity, and of the expediency of letting drop the forced provision of a minister, and his forced maintenance by the parish, being once established, the rest seems to be mere matter of calculation; and to admit of being adjusted by men of business, as in any ordinary case between man and man. The parson, I believe, is a corporation by himself; and the Church' (about the interests and dignity and purity and infallibility of which we hear so much) though consisting of an aggregate of a great number of corporations is, in effect and law, a Non-entity: sound lawyers having never chosen to contemplate the clergy, apart from the laity, under that denomination. Such an adjustment as is here described (or rather hinted at) would take a long time in being carried into effect. And perhaps, were sound general principles once laid down by the Legislature, and provision made for their equal application, as cases might arise, it would be found best for the community, that the further Religious or Ecclesiastical Reform, now become so necessary to the country, should proceed thus, with slow but firm steps, to its consummation. What has been done hitherto, since our breaking off from Rome, has been mixed, it must be confessed with much of injustice and cruelty. Could any thing be more like making God the author of confusion (instead of peace, as in all churches of the Saints) than the ejecting on "Bartholomew-day 1662" of no fewer than two thousand ministers of the Establishment, against whom little could be said, beyond their preference of a Presbytery to Episcopal government? And the previous turning out, by the Commonwealth's men, of those to whom many of these succeeded, was, I imagine, not much more considerately or mercifully done. It is far more likely, that parsons would be found who should prove acceptable, as ministers, to the congregations (now no more to be lorded over but served), and that the different interests concerned would be adjusted to satisfaction, in this slow way, than in one which might promise greater despatch, but fail of safety. Those