AND 
 
 CIRCUMSTANCES 
 
 RELATING TO 
 
 THE CONDITION OF THE IRISH CLERGY 
 
 j 
 
 v OF THE 
 
 ESTABLISHED CHURCH, 
 
 AND TO 
 
 THE PRESENT STATE OF IRELAND 
 
 BY THE REV. T. S. TOWNSEND, 
 
 Rector of Timogue. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 WILLIAM CURRY, JUN. AND COMPANY 
 SIMPKIN AND MARSHALL, LONDON- 
 

 v*- / 
 
 
 i :*/ 
 
 f ■ • • : 
 
 i r 
 
 »-* f 
 
 .1 L . 
 
 
 - r 
 
 - -> t • .. 
 
 »' k 1 i / f 
 
 
 
 
 / t. , ) 11 r 
 
 { 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 >r 
 
 •j • 
 
 
 *- 
 
 
 
 t.- i 
 
 r ^ 
 
 
 
 (v* 
 
 c 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 * » / • V V J 
 
 * i *' ‘ » >i * j . j •, • • • 
 
 • - * -» * , 
 
 ' / .> t v; 
 
 
 • r ' r -> i 
 
 I r ; « i,- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 _ 8 3 . ° 
 
 0 
 
 T U (*l 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 r .. - > . . . ., r .*. -i c . J :i 
 
 The task which the writer of the following 
 
 A » ' 
 
 pages has attempted, could indeed have been 
 executed with infinitely greater ability and better 
 effect, by almost any of his suffering brethren; 
 but convinced as he is of this fact, he does not 
 deem it the less advisable to endeavour to remove, 
 as far as he can, some portion of that mistake 
 
 and misapprehension, which appears to have 
 gained ground respecting the Irish Clergy of the 
 Established Church. 
 
 ' : ■ U - 1 
 
 Of the many who are able by their great 
 talents, acquirements, and powers of reason, to 
 do ample justice to the state of affairs in Ireland, 
 with respect to the Clergy, the peculiar circum¬ 
 stances of uneasiness and privation in which 
 most of them are placed in a great degree dis- 
 
IV 
 
 qualify them—it is not, however, to supply their 
 places, or to do any thing like justice to the 
 subject itself, that the author has ventured upon 
 the sketch of facts and circumstances which fol¬ 
 lows, but, until something better may appear, 
 to prevent the statements of hostility, prejudice 
 and bigotry, which have gone forth, from taking 
 a fixed hold on men’s minds, who have as yet 
 been denied better authority respecting the true 
 circumstances of the Irish Clergy. 
 
 The intrinsic importance of this subject is 
 great;—the author has not the presumption to 
 fancy he could enhance that, by any thing which 
 he could do—on the contrary, his apprehension 
 is, that it must suffer in his hands, even though 
 he scarcely proposes to do more, than to attract 
 to the situation, as well as to the sufferings of 
 the Irish Church, the sober consideration of the 
 Protestants of the united kingdom. In many 
 particulars he has fallen far short of the object 
 intended, which he is convinced others of his 
 
V 
 
 brethren would have attained without difficulty; 
 but if there be not a feeling in the hearts of all 
 Protestants, ready to respond in sympathy and 
 conscientious interest to the state of the Irish 
 Clergy, almost without present incomes, and 
 
 quite uncertain as to the future; it would be a 
 
 * 
 
 vain hope to expect much from any statements, 
 however authentic or well founded in themselves, 
 or however strenuously, or anxiously put forward. 
 How far these remarks may be called for, the 
 writer of them leaves to others to judge, merely 
 expressing his own opinion, that the Established 
 Church in Ireland stands, to all human appear¬ 
 ance, in greater peril, as well as in greater 
 difficulty, at this moment, than she has done at 
 any period since the Reformation; he also begs 
 leave to add, in apology for the defence of her 
 temporalities, which principally occupies the 
 pages which follow, that he indeed considers 
 them where they ought to be, altogether secon¬ 
 dary and subordinate to her spiritualities ; but 
 
vi 
 
 he cannot help thinking both so intimately con¬ 
 nected, that the destruction of the one must 
 materially affect the other, and that the attack 
 upon the former, amongst other objects, is prin¬ 
 cipally with a view to injure and depress the 
 latter. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 The present condition of the Established 
 Church in Ireland is so very singular in its 
 sufferings, that one is naturally led to enquire 
 the causes which have nearly stripped an entire 
 class of persons of their properties, almost 
 without a struggle, or the majority (except 
 those immediately concerned) appearing to be 
 aware of the dangers which were closing round, 
 not only their interests, but their very existence. 
 Falsehood and violence appear indeed to have 
 gained a strange triumph over truth, justice, 
 and policy; and with the most profligate agency 
 that ever obtained a wicked success, they have 
 almost laid in ruin one of the most noble in^ 
 stitutions that ever was founded for the preser¬ 
 vation of a pure Religion amongst mankind. 
 The facts, by which so extraordinary a result 
 was effected, are pregnant with much instruc- , 
 
 B 
 
tion. They are but little understood, especi¬ 
 ally by the great body of our British fellow- 
 subjects; for falsehood and fraud have never 
 ceased to interpose such a cloudy atmosphere 
 of lies between the truth, and those, especially, 
 who stand at a distance from the passing trans¬ 
 actions in Ireland, as to present delusive ap¬ 
 pearances, in the place of actual realities, and 
 to impose the fabrications of a bold and daring 
 calumny, for authentic events and circum¬ 
 stances. . . 
 
 Placed in a land which is the strong hold of 
 superstition, and where the preservation of 
 ignorance, from the injuries which light and 
 intelligence bring with them, is necessary to 
 its existence, the Church in Ireland could not, 
 in the natural course of things, but have nu¬ 
 merous and adventurous enemies encompass¬ 
 ing her on every side. The scheme of their 
 hostility never intermitted—for the purity of 
 her doctrine, and the assiduity with which 
 (particularly of late years) a large portion of 
 her clergy w r ere faithful to the sacred duty of 
 endeavouring to spread abroad, throughout a 
 land of darkness, the blessings of that truth, 
 of which she might safely be pronounced to 
 
t 
 
 3 
 
 have been so long the depository, rendered 
 even any suspension of hostility a dangerous 
 moderation; therefore, from the day that Dr. 
 Dromgoole sounded his trumpet in the Catho¬ 
 lic Association, and announced that <£ the co¬ 
 lumns of Catholicity” were in full march against 
 the “ law church”— sc the novelty,” as he called 
 it—to the last pastoral of Dr. Doyle, and his 
 traductory evidence lately before the Com¬ 
 mittees of Parliament, the war lias been push¬ 
 ed against the Established Church and the 
 Clergy, without a perceptible pause in the artil¬ 
 lery of calumny, vituperation, and unfounded 
 assertion; at the same time that lawless power 
 was obtained to realize prophetic menaces and 
 denunciations against the lives of the latter. 
 A press, conducted by ardent and interested 
 partizans—reckless in assertion, and unsparing 
 in obloquy—demagogues of tried experience 
 in all manner of rhetorical artifices , vied with 
 each other in keeping up vollies of invective— 
 generally gross, scurrilous, and unfounded; 
 and as every offensive imputation was over¬ 
 thrown—every accusation defeated—every im¬ 
 peachment contravened—and every assertion 
 falsified—in short, as every statement deroga- 
 
4 
 
 tory to (lie clergy became exposed, and the 
 malignity and falsehood of it established, im¬ 
 mediately another was brought forward—until, 
 at length, all shadow of justifiable arraignment 
 appears to have been abandoned, and, openly 
 and boldly, the ruin of the clergy, and the 
 destruction of the church are required, upon no 
 pretence more solid and defensible, than that 
 their enemies demand them. The revolution¬ 
 ary engines which were employed to accom¬ 
 plish this, in alliance with those which were 
 worked by spiritual rancour, wrought up the 
 passions of a superstitious and turbulent popu¬ 
 lace, in the course of time, into a state border¬ 
 ing on the wildest enthusiasm; and against 
 hostility, in this new and unexpected form, 
 there was no making any other stand than 
 what the laws of the country could aftord, or, if 
 these were wanting in vigour to meet so ex¬ 
 traordinary a state of things, what the wisdom 
 of Parliament could supply. What sort of 
 stand either of these resources have enabled 
 the clergy to make, it is hardly necessary to 
 observe upon. 
 
 The religious antipathies of the ignorant 
 were not alone relied upon for raising up a 
 
host of fraternized adversaries against the 
 clergy—their cupidity was also appealed to ; 
 and to this Dr. Doyle, accordingly, specially 
 applied himself, for inciting the peasantry to a 
 perseverance in their attacks upon the proper¬ 
 ties of the clergy, by imposing on them, as a 
 truth, the fallacy of the tripartite and quadri¬ 
 partite division of tithes, and also the allega¬ 
 tion that the clergy had, by retaining all the 
 tithes of their parishes, robbed the poor of a 
 proportion, rightfully applicable to their re¬ 
 lief. 
 
 It is hardly to be conceived that a man of 
 Dr. Doyle’s acknowledged abilities, could have t 
 imposed such a fraud upon his own understand¬ 
 ing, before he attempted to mislead that of 
 others—but the infidel Gibbon says, <€ that 
 whenever the spirit of fanaticism, at once so 
 credulous and so crafty, has insinuated itself 
 into a fine mind, it insensibly corrodes the vi¬ 
 tal principle of virtue and veracity.” What 
 may have influenced Dr. Doyle to hazard a 
 scheme of argument, upon authority weak and 
 defective in every step, it is impossible to say; 
 but it is now of little consequence to inquire, 
 after the complete and able exposure of all the 
 
6 
 
 fallacies of his authorities, as well as his rea¬ 
 soning's, by Dr. Newland, who has met him 
 on his own grounds, and defeated every pro¬ 
 position which he has advanced, and every 
 conclusion which he has made. The same 
 Right Rev. Gentleman seems to have devoted 
 himself to the interests of his cause after a 
 manner which is more likely to leave behind ra¬ 
 ther a new example of zeal, than one worthy 
 of imitation, for he appears to have been more 
 anxious to state what he wished, than what he 
 could prove. He has not scrupled to make the 
 most sweeping charges against the clergy—he 
 has had no hesitation in stating those in Ian- 
 
 * 
 
 guage as illiberal, as the charges themselves 
 were generally unfounded. In his evidence 
 before the .Lords, he is reported to have stated, 
 in giving his reasons for the resistance to 
 tithe :— 
 
 “ First, the oppressive nature of the tithe, as it effects 
 agriculture and industry; secondly, the exactions on account 
 of tithe by the Protestant incumbents and their proctors, ex¬ 
 actions which went beyond the law , and produced on the part 
 of many individuals, particularly of the poorest class, suf¬ 
 fering of the most acute kind.”— (Evi. Lords. 325 .) 
 
 He accused the clergy of the Established 
 Church of crimes not less serious than spo- 
 
7 
 
 Hation, robbery, and extortion ; but notwith*- 
 standing that lie did make those accusations, 
 so little qualified by justice and generosity, 
 in his evidence before the Committees, yet 
 when called upon to substantiate any of the 
 numerous charges he brought forward, he ap¬ 
 pears to have altogether failed in doing so. 
 This incapacity can scarcely be attributed to 
 this Right Reverend polemic’s mercy, in sup¬ 
 pressing any information which he may have 
 received to the disadvantage of the Protestant 
 clergy, or (had such charges any foundation) 
 to any want of abundant information; as, no¬ 
 toriously, the whole Roman Catholic priest¬ 
 hood were indefatigably occupied in the honor¬ 
 able office of supplying him with all the stories 
 and tales, which the secret inquisition they can 
 employ into the affairs of every family, retain¬ 
 ing Roman Catholic servants, enables them to 
 collect. As a strong example of the nature of 
 the information, procured by such unworthy 
 means, presents itself in the case of the Rev. 
 T. Vigors, Rector of Powerstown, it is worth 
 while to make some extracts from the parlia¬ 
 mentary evidence respecting him, and particu¬ 
 larly as this was almost the only case which 
 
8 
 
 was specifically and distinctly brought forward. 
 As the extract, however, is too long for this 
 place, it has been placed in an appendix, (a) 
 Again, the incorrectness of the Doctor’s in¬ 
 formation is demonstrated in various state¬ 
 ments which it has suited his purpose to put 
 forward year after year, respecting the incomes 
 of the clergy. All those are so enormously 
 exaggerated, that with a knowledge of the 
 fact* it is not easy to understand how any man 
 of Dr. Doyle’s station and credit could have 
 descended to so low a help to his cause, with¬ 
 out referring to Gibbon’s opinion again, as a 
 solution of the difficulty. Can any man sup¬ 
 pose that he had never the curiosity or the ho¬ 
 nesty to inquire into statements which he has 
 been boldly disseminating throughout Europe 
 for so many years, and which, if he did wish 
 to be informed about, the average of his own 
 diocese would have shown him in half an hour 
 the true and exact state ? But the truth of 
 those statements was of little importance, pro¬ 
 vided an outcry could be raised at the right 
 time and in the right place, and provided it 
 would open the attack, which could no longer, 
 without danger to the Romish Church, be de- 
 
9 
 
 layed, on account of the increased zeal and abi¬ 
 lity of the members of the Established Church, 
 in endeavouring to open the eyes of their de¬ 
 luded and ignorant countrymen to the errors 
 and soul-destroying bondage of popery; and 
 decidedly a more unexpected, and at the same 
 time a more emphatic testimony to the improve¬ 
 ment of zeal in the gospel service, which has 
 taken place within the last few years amongst 
 the ministers of the Established Church in Ire¬ 
 land, was never borne, than that which Dr. 
 Doyle himself has left on record in part of his 
 Evidence, where, having been alike beaten out 
 of his division of tithes, and his charges against 
 the clergy, he admits the true cause of hostility 
 against them. In his Evidence before the Com¬ 
 mittee of the House of Lords, he is reported 
 to have stated, 
 
 “ The Protestant Clergy, though many have personal pro¬ 
 perty, still generally are solely dependant upon their livings; 
 they have only a life interest in them ; they generally have 
 large families, and are obliged to live with economy, and to 
 husband all their resources, in order to educate their children 
 and make some provision for them—their expenditure must 
 therefore be small; then as to their benevolence, there are 
 several of them who are extremely kind , and their wives and 
 children, I believe, are not less well disposed: latterly, un¬ 
 fortunately for themselves and for the peace of the country, 
 
 B 5 
 
10 
 
 they have almost universally been influenced by over zeal in 
 religion, and while with one hand they scatter a few benefits, 
 with another they sow discord, and the Clergyman and his 
 family are amongst what we call proselytizers, who disturb the 
 peace of the people, and do a vast deal of mischief while they 
 do some good.”— (Evi. Lords. 343.,/ 
 
 Again, in his Evidence before the Committee 
 of the Commons, he says, 
 
 “ But besides this abuse of the trust on the part of the 
 Protestant Clergy, and the nature of tithe being an oppres¬ 
 sive tax upon human labour, capital, skill, and industry, 
 there have been special causes of late years at work to pro¬ 
 duce a violent degree of animosity in the minds of the Ca¬ 
 tholic people of Ireland against the trustees of this fund. 
 These trustees, or the Protestant Established Clergy, have 
 of late years raised very generally, where they could do it, 
 the amount of tithe, and have employed in the collection of 
 it farmers or proctors, who resorted, I will not say to unjust 
 means only, but to means of the most tyrannical and cruel 
 hind; these in many instances occurred with the knowledge of 
 the Clergymen, and not being prevented by them, nor the 
 proctors arrested by them in the exercise of those cruelties, 
 the people naturally transferred the hatred which they bore 
 to the proctor to the Clergyman. There was also an effort 
 made a few years past to propagate in Ireland what was called 
 the New Reformation. The Clergy of the Established 
 Church may be divided into two portions, one leaning to 
 Calvinistic doctrine, and the other adhering to the letter, 
 and perhaps the spirit, of the thirty-nine articles. But this 
 Calvinistic party have undertaken to convert us, forsooth, 
 from Catholicism to Protestantism, and in making efforts to 
 do so, they have not failed to speak all manner of evil things 
 of the Catholic Clergy and people, to misrepresent inces- 
 
11 
 
 santly and grossly, and to calumniate, in language that ought 
 not to be used by gentlemen, our persons, our doctrine, and 
 our discipline. They imputed to us in their meetings, doc¬ 
 trines which we abhorred ; they told the people that we wrote 
 and said the most monstrous absurdities; and they told this 
 to a people who every day read their own catechisms, and 
 read their -own books of common prayer, and heard me and 
 such as me expound the gospel, and teach the Catholic doc¬ 
 trine, and thereby teach them the opposite of what these 
 new reformation gentlemen imputed to us. The people 
 therefore saw, and necessarily saw, that they were calum¬ 
 niators. Great numbers of the Protestant Clergy, nearly 
 the entire of the Calvanistic party of them, having combined 
 with some nameless strolling people to disseminate these ca¬ 
 lumnies against the Catholic people, their Clergy and doc¬ 
 trines incurred on that account the deep-rooted aversion, if 
 not hatred of the people. It was not only in this they erred, 
 but we have had a contest for many years upon the subject 
 of education, and whenever the Catholic people on account 
 of it were vexed, and troubled, and injured, they traced the 
 vexation, trouble, or injury done to them, to the direct or 
 indirect interference of the Protestant Clergy. While our 
 Catholic question, also, was pending before Parliament, they 
 generally, though not universally, took an active part against 
 us ; and when the ascendancy party, in the last struggles to 
 maintain their privileges, formed Brunswick Clubs, these 
 Protestant Clergy made themselves conspicuous and promi¬ 
 nent. All these things combined—the violation of trust, 
 the appropriation to themselves of the property of the poor, 
 the calumnies uttered at their religious meetings, their inter¬ 
 ference with the education of the people, their opposition to 
 the emancipation of the Catholics, and an effort to maintain 
 ascendancy where the law said there should be equality—all 
 these things they did, and all these things prepared the Ca¬ 
 tholic people of Ireland to give to them, in their temporal 
 
12 
 
 interests, all the opposition which was possible, consistent 
 with the non-violation of the law.”— (Evid. Com. 3044 .) 
 
 Although sarcasm and invective so highly 
 pervade this inflamed passage, it is not, how¬ 
 ever, on this account, that it merits any notice, 
 but because, harsh and splenetic as the author 
 was when he uttered it, he unwillingly divulg¬ 
 ed the real motives which gave fury and direc¬ 
 tion to his more sober antipathies. The zeal 
 which the clergy of the Established Church 
 manifested in all directions for the propagation 
 of truth, alarmed the Romish clergy—they 
 roused themselves in all quarters to oppose 
 the effects of missions, and preachings, exhor¬ 
 tations and Bible Societies; and as they did 
 not venture to meet their opponents upon the 
 grounds of doctrine, they resolved to encounter 
 them with what they conceived was a more 
 formidable mode of disputation—the physical 
 strength of the Roman Catholic peasantry. 
 Dr. Kelly, the titular Archbishop of Tuam, 
 anathematized the circulation of the Holy 
 Scriptures—others of the Romish hierarchy 
 were not less strenuous in expressing their 
 hostility to the spreading of the Word of God 
 amongst the ignorant multitudes, with the sal- 
 
13 
 
 vation of whose souls they claim to be en¬ 
 trusted. Pastorini’s Prophecies became re¬ 
 published and circulated—and Dr. Doyle’s Pas¬ 
 torals soon followed, as well as his other po¬ 
 litical disquisitions respecting* the state of Ire¬ 
 land. The properties of the church and cler¬ 
 gy may have long remained unmolested, were 
 it not for the effects which the Christian zeal 
 of that clergy was likely to produce; and 
 therefore the most ingenious, plausible, sophis¬ 
 tical and intrepid of all the Roman Catholic 
 controversialists, thought it high time to turn 
 the full force of his talents and authority, 
 against tithes, and to bring the war into the 
 enemy’s quarters. Neither the tripartite, nor 
 quadripartite division of tithes, nor any of the 
 causes subsequently resorted to, to justify the 
 outrage, had any real influence in producing 
 the attack upon the property of the church. 
 In addition to the primary one of opening the 
 trenches against all Protestant property what¬ 
 ever, the true reason is, that which Dr. Doyle 
 did not labour to conceal while he was giving 
 a copious indulgence to his settled principles 
 of aversion to the Established Church. Had 
 the clergy of the present day slumbered in the 
 
14 
 
 comparative inaction which was imputed to them 
 some years ago, they might have continued to 
 enjoy their incomes from tithe in quiet and re¬ 
 pose—and the 44 Catholic people” would never 
 have been lectured and inflamed into the per¬ 
 suasion, that they were 44 vexed and troubled” 
 44 by the direct and indirect interference of the 
 Protestant clergy,” and that this clergy had 
 been guilty of a 44 violation of trust, and the 
 appropriation to themselves of the property of 
 the poor.” 
 
 That the clergy of the Established Church 
 did oppose themselves to those false assump¬ 
 tions, upon which the Roman Catholics and 
 their partizans lately rested their political 
 claims, is admitted. They could not have 
 conscientiously stood neutral during a struggle 
 between the constitution and the ambition of 
 the Roman Catholic Church. Their position 
 gave them a closer and a clearer view of the 
 favourite objects of that church, than the Pro¬ 
 testant laity could be supposed to possess. 
 They are professionally engaged in the consi¬ 
 deration of those fundamental points, upon 
 which their own reformed church differs from 
 the Romish. They are constantly reminded 
 
15 
 
 by facts presented to their minds of the his¬ 
 tory of the great struggle between them—The 
 invincible arguments of the early reformers 
 form part of their ordinary studies—a close in¬ 
 spection of the present state of the Church of 
 Rome—a watchful attention to its policy—the 
 influence of its teaching and authority upon 
 society in regard to civil liberty—all those 
 things never cease to be pressed upon the 
 attentions of the clergy of the Established 
 Church, who with such motives for vigilance, 
 and with such sources of information as they 
 possess, could hardly be expected not to have 
 come forward in the expression of their opi¬ 
 nions. It is perhaps the only truth which has 
 substantial existence among the ill-favoured 
 fancies and shadows which crowd this part of 
 Dr. Doyle’s testimony, that the clergy, as a 
 body, did oppose the granting of political 
 power, loosely, to a great religious party in the 
 state, whom they had better reason than others for 
 knowing, and who would make the first use 
 of it, by employing it with the bitterest zeal 
 against themselves, their rights and their pro¬ 
 perties. How far they were justified in the 
 opposition they made—how far they magnified 
 
16 
 
 the dangers they dreaded—in fact, how far 
 events have confirmed the soundness and truth 
 of those opinions upon which the clergy acted, 
 the present state of things in Ireland, with all 
 the auxiliary evidence of speeches, writings, 
 exclusive dealings, seditious meetings, and 
 persecutions of Protestants, speaks trumpet- 
 tongued. 
 
 But should the condition upon which the in¬ 
 comes of the clergy are to depend, be, (as Dr. 
 Doyle seems to insinuate) that they should 
 abandon their duty as ministers of the gospel, 
 in endeavouring to make known that Gospel to 
 their deluded countrymen, and bribed by an 
 ignominious compact of quietly enjoying their 
 tithes, should close their eyes, and shut their lips, 
 in compliance with the words of man, but in di¬ 
 rect opposition to the word of God —upon such 
 flagitious terms, it is indeed devoutly to be 
 hoped, that one shilling of tithes shall never 
 again be paid in Ireland. Or if they are to 
 be so dependant upon the “ good will” of the 
 “ Catholic people” for their means of subsist¬ 
 ence, that every assertion of their rights as 
 citizens—every expression of their opinions as 
 freemen—and every exercise of their privileges 
 
17 
 
 as British subjects, should cause (as Dr. Doyle 
 expresses it) such a “ general alienation of 
 the Catholic people from the clergy through¬ 
 out the country,” as to endanger those means— 
 the condition of a West Indian slave would be 
 free, compared with an Irish clergyman. One 
 would be led to suppose that the payment of 
 tithe was not a matter of right, but of favour , 
 and that when the favoured party disobliged 
 their masters, they were punished accordingly 
 —one would imagine that we were already be¬ 
 neath the iron grasp of a popish government, 
 when the public expression of men’s opinions, 
 the conscientious exercise of their judgments, 
 and the wicked fact of being accessary to 
 either the circulation of the Bible, or the di¬ 
 vulging its contents, is seriously brought for¬ 
 ward, as a sufficient reason for reducing those 
 men to ruin and beggary. Surely, let Protes¬ 
 tants differ as they may amongst themselves, as 
 to the use, or policy, or even propriety of 
 such measures, if there is one spark of that 
 noble spirit remaining which shone so conspi¬ 
 cuously in their ancestors—that spirit which so 
 often brought them forward at the expense of 
 their best blood, as the champions of civil and 
 
18 
 
 religious liberty, they must protest against a 
 principle, which in the first place involves in 
 it such atrocious tyranny to the individuals con¬ 
 cerned ; and in the next place, insinuates that 
 they owe to popish favour, forbearance, and 
 liberality, the support and maintenance of their 
 institutions. 
 
19 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 As it is proposed to represent the condition 
 of the Established Clinrch in Ireland, at the 
 present juncture, it should not be concealed, 
 that the number of those ready to legislate, in 
 order to insure her final declension, comprises 
 a considerable portion of the Irish public, the 
 great majority being of the Roman Catholic 
 persuasion. However, it is a rare thing to see 
 the downfal of a church and her clergy con¬ 
 templated with as little remorse as the abate¬ 
 ment of a common nuisance, such as the Ca¬ 
 tholic Association has been, and such as vari¬ 
 ous other things now are, which are allowed to 
 exist at present. A rustic democracy, headed 
 by intriguing priests, and supported by dema¬ 
 gogues, has, comparatively, destroyed the in¬ 
 comes of the clergy—and acting upon what is 
 characteristic of all democracies, whether it be 
 
20 
 
 composed of the highest grades of society, or 
 of all conditions whatever, it is equally shame¬ 
 less as it is fearless—and that degree of will , 
 which its supporters would not allow to a king, 
 they never fail to exercise themselves, in a man¬ 
 ner as unlimited, as the prevailing passion or 
 even phrenzy may dictate, and to set it up ab¬ 
 solutely as the standard of right and wrong. 
 Without any title to civil power of any sort, 
 and employing usurped license, as much to its 
 own injury as that of others, the democracy, 
 which has plundered the Irish clergy, now de¬ 
 mands, by means of its political functionaries, 
 a submission to its will, even from those in 
 whose hands the power of the state is constitu¬ 
 tionally vested; whilst the democracy itself is, 
 in fact, a prey to the cupidity and the ambition 
 of the worst of demagogues, and the most in¬ 
 sidious of sacerdotal counsellors. 
 
 Heretofore the best and wisest of the commen¬ 
 tators upon our constitution, held it as a max¬ 
 im, that the property of the church and clergy 
 was incorporated and identified with the great 
 mass of private property, of which, as Mr. Burke 
 observes, “ the state is not the proprietor either 
 for use or dominion, but the guardian only and 
 
21 
 
 the regulator.” The true principles of English 
 freedom produce constitutional motives, as well 
 as those also which arise out of the higher 
 authority of religion itself, against turning a 
 body of clergy, independant, in their own right, 
 to their property, first into beggars, that at best 
 they may ultimately become so many ecclesi¬ 
 astical pensioners; and yet a wicked combina¬ 
 tion, by murder, blood, and outrage, has been 
 able almost to accomplish what no constitutional 
 power, vested in the legislature could do, 
 without a reference to its metaphysical omni¬ 
 potence, in order to avoid any appeal from its 
 injustice. And under what circumstances is 
 this act of tyranny attempted ?—it is not during 
 a long and wasting war—it is not when the 
 state is making great exactions for the common 
 security, against such dangers from abroad as, 
 a few years ago, it was the fate of the British 
 people to contend against—but it is at a period 
 when the nation is at peace—when the internal 
 traffic of Ireland has increased—when the mid¬ 
 dle ranks of her inhabitants are gradually and 
 wonderfully extending—when those who have 
 concentrated their power within the bonds of 
 the combination referred to, the Roman Catho- 
 
lies of Ireland, have so increased in wealth, as 
 to pretend to a leading monied interest in the 
 country—as to be able to raise immense con¬ 
 tributions for all purposes peculiarly their own 
 —as to be able to bestow upon their clergy of 
 all ranks munificent stipends—to construct, 
 throughout the whole country, splendid temples 
 of prayer—to reward their political champion 
 and primary agitator with an income, exceeding 
 that of the President of the United States of 
 America—to support an extensive press—and 
 to endow superfluous funds for the persecution 
 of their competitors, as well as for the support 
 of their own agents and instruments. It is 
 now, in this “high and palmy state” of their 
 power, that they are demanding the demolition 
 of the church establishment, as burdensome 
 and oppressive—that their delegates in Parlia¬ 
 ment limit their clemency to allowing the Pro¬ 
 testant clergy to die off to a certain standard, 
 such as they may approve of, and then to be 
 placed upon a footing with the excisemen. 
 Their orators and politicians are, indeed, work¬ 
 ing hard to promote what they calculate is like¬ 
 ly to circumscribe the Gospel labours of Pro¬ 
 testant clergymen—they propose to keep the 
 
number down to such a reduced scale, as may 
 leave no leisure from the formal duties of the 
 church, so that superstition may fear no inter¬ 
 ruption, nor ignorance no instruction—they at¬ 
 tempt, as it were, to fix for ever the number of 
 those whose profession of faith is founded on 
 the Bible, and to appoint the precise quantity of 
 congregations who shall belong to the Reformed 
 Church—they want almost to yoke down to 
 an arbitrary estimate of their own, the Protes¬ 
 tant people of Ireland, and to fix a standard 
 number at which they shall remain for ever— 
 and they propose to permit as many clergymen 
 as they may think just sufficient for such a 
 number, to be preserved from starvation, by 
 such salaries as they shall think fit to allow 
 them. Really, the wondrous facts respecting 
 the Established Church in Ireland, which are 
 at present staring us in the face, almost exceed 
 the inventions of the most prejudiced and un¬ 
 friendly imagination. 
 
 But can all these things pass in Ireland and 
 produce no effects in England? Impossible— 
 examples of violent undertakings we know are 
 contagious things in modern times; and should 
 the Church of Ireland succumb under that 
 
24 
 
 fate, which has all but overwhelmed her in her 
 temporal interests and concerns, is not that 
 church, with which she is altogether identified, 
 in some danger in England ? True it is that 
 there are some hollow apologies making for 
 her, which are denied to her “ other self’ in 
 Ireland. But who is answerable for the con¬ 
 tinuance of this disposition, or for the observ¬ 
 ance of those promises respecting the preser¬ 
 vation of her privileges? Nobody—they are 
 but the deceitful verbiage of newspapers, and 
 that for the day—nobody owns them. But 
 let it be supposed that some person, either high 
 in power or considerable in weight, were to at¬ 
 tempt to make a distinction, where there is 
 really none, between the Church of England 
 in Ireland and in England, and to imagine that 
 one may maintain herself, and the other be left 
 to float down the rough current which is ready 
 to bear her to her anticipated ruin—what 
 would follow ? First, that the Union between 
 Great Britain and Ireland would be thereby so 
 deeply violated in a grand and essential point, 
 as to be, according to the laws of contract, dis¬ 
 solved—and, according to the moral weight of 
 reciprocal obligations, annulled—there would 
 
25 
 
 be no union speaking upon fair and comprehen¬ 
 sive principles of right and justice—even though 
 the routine of things were to proceed in their 
 present course, it would not actually exist, be¬ 
 cause the Protestant parliament of Ireland was 
 a party to the union, during the Jacobin war f 
 to preserve their church and their religion, as 
 they were circumstanced at the time of the 
 compact; this stipulation formed an essential 
 part of the union : and are the pastorals and 
 pamphlets of Dr. Doyle, and the “ wit and 
 talent” of his religious disciples, to destroy 
 this essential part ? Is parliament, deferring 
 to the desires of such parties, to act in direct 
 opposition, nay, to the very annihilation of the 
 article in the act of union ? Those are serious 
 considerations, for it is quite apparent that a 
 large majority of the Protestants of Ireland 
 exhibit any thing but a dull submission to the 
 adversity which has overtaken them. One of 
 the arguments made use of at the time of the 
 union (it is upon record, and any man may put 
 his linger upon it) was, that by the incorpora¬ 
 tion of the two countries legislatively and poli¬ 
 tically into one, the Protestants would then 
 constitute a vast numerical superiority, so that 
 
 c 
 
26 
 
 no injury could ever result to the Protestant 
 religion or the church instituted for the pure 
 administration of it, even though political eligi¬ 
 bility should be bestowed upon the Roman 
 Catholics. Now it may fairly be asked is this 
 understanding about to be kept ? If it be, the 
 Established Church in Ireland must be supported, 
 and supported unmutilated and unimpaired— 
 yes, must, if there be truth, justice, or ordinary 
 honor in Great Britain ; to say nothing of policy 
 —to say nothing of any higher obligation aris¬ 
 ing from religion itself, the paramount object of 
 human consideration. 
 
 If the Church of Ireland should be broken 
 down, notwithstanding the guarantee for her 
 preservation held out by the act of union, it is 
 again asked is the Church of England safe? 
 far from it; those who look abroad see suffi¬ 
 cient indications inauspicious to her repose; 
 each of the united and identified churches stand 
 upon the same basis—namely, truth—that is 
 their common foundation. How can truth be 
 extinguished legislatively in Ireland, and pre¬ 
 served in England ? There is but one founda¬ 
 tion for any church—truth, such truth as is in 
 accordance with the Bible; although in this age 
 
27 
 
 of infidelity and latitudinarianism some politi¬ 
 cians may, perhaps, take other views of the 
 subject, preferring what they conceive notions of 
 expediency and policy to scriptural truth; and 
 reasoning as if religion were a civil convenience 
 or a human invention, and not as that upon 
 which all success in this world, and all hopes 
 in the next, altogether depend. It is from such 
 a principle that the monstrous assertion, so pre¬ 
 valent at the present day amongst a particular 
 party, has arisen: namely, that because the 
 majority of the people of Ireland are Roman 
 Catholics, therefore the Established Church 
 should be Roman Catholic, and not that of the 
 minor numerical sect. If this be true, Hin^ 
 dooism should be the established religion of 
 British India, or Mahometanism of Persia; 
 indeed, in almost all cases, Christianity should 
 give way before the more numerous followers of 
 Idolatry. Once this principle be admitted, 
 that the religion of a country should be decided 
 by the numbers of its followers, and not by the 
 truth of the religion itself, and there is an 
 end to every distinction between what is 
 true and what is false, or any other rule of ac¬ 
 tion, but that which any mob, no matter how 
 
28 
 
 vicious, ignorant, or depraved, may choose to 
 set up for themselves. The lowest and least 
 informed constitute the majority of human be¬ 
 ings in every state; and surely it is, even in a 
 mere worldly and political sense, a proposition 
 quite extravagant in itself to say, that if this 
 low and ignorant majority should think proper 
 to prefer any religion, the intelligent and the 
 informed, who constitute the minority of every 
 society, are bound to adopt that as the esta¬ 
 blished religion of the state, and which, as the es¬ 
 tablished religion, has a right to be nationally 
 supported. 
 
 It may be observed that in case of Hindoo- 
 ism or Mahometanism, &c. &c. being the re¬ 
 ligion of the multitude, as they are Heathen¬ 
 isms, they should not be maintained to the pre¬ 
 judice of Christianity, whereas the same ob¬ 
 jection does not apply to Popery, that being 
 a creed of Christianity. The remark, though 
 it has often been made, does not affect the prin¬ 
 ciple of deciding the national religion by the 
 numbers belonging to the sects, and not by the 
 doctrine of any of the sects themselves. When 
 we come to measure Popery by the only stand¬ 
 ard by which it can be truly estimated—namely, 
 
129 
 
 the Holy Scriptures —although it does profess 
 to know Christ, yet it appears so far from teach¬ 
 ing men according to him the way of salvation 
 —it surrounds itself by such “ a refuge of liesf 
 that the proportion of truth it contains is just 
 sufficient to answer the purpose of effectually 
 blinding men’s eyes, and preventing an enquiry, 
 which but for this semblance of truth, they 
 would, perhaps, not be unwilling to make. It 
 resembles the thin and flimsy covering of gilding, 
 which conceals the baser metal underneath, and 
 prevents men from enquiring what that metal is, 
 provided the eye be satisfied with the resem¬ 
 blance to real gold. This view of the question 
 no doubt the sweeping liberality of the present 
 day will call uncharitable, and the language un¬ 
 becoming a Christian ; but we are here dealing 
 with a system , and however we may humbly 
 hope that there are individuals professing to ad¬ 
 here to it, who though in form belonging to 
 it, yet in spirit have seen the true faith, and 
 laid hold upon it, still, as a system, we are 
 bound to say, that the subject is of too much 
 importance to be considered in reference to hu¬ 
 man opinions, and therefore we must go “to 
 the law and the testimony” to decide for us; 
 
30 
 
 and if, when conscientiously brought to that un¬ 
 erring standard, we find Popery “ wanting,” we 
 have no right either to disguise or qualify the 
 result. Perhaps some of those who may be 
 most ready to raise their voices in condemnation 
 (as has been before observed) of what is so op¬ 
 posite to the liberalism of the times, might 
 be less inclined to do so by calling to mind that 
 the great majority of Protestants, and possibly 
 they themselves, have, at some period of their 
 lives, sicorn that this very same Popery, which 
 they are now so ready to lift upon their shoulders 
 and place above all that was heretofore valued 
 or estimated, was nothing less than “ damnable 
 and idolatrous either of which expressions 
 would go the full length of placing it where 
 the parallel allusion originally put it, on a foot¬ 
 ing with any of the other delusive superstitions 
 of the world. 
 
 These remarks, it will be at once seen, are 
 addressed to Protestants, and to them alone ; 
 and in considering the part it becomes them to 
 take in the maintenance of Popery, either here 
 or elsewhere, the question simply resolves it¬ 
 self to this, if Popery be in accordance to the 
 Word of God it should be supported—if it, is 
 
31 
 
 not , woe unto him that either publicly or pri¬ 
 vately seeks to uphold that which he believes 
 to be a false religion either in whole or part; 
 he is doing that which he must know and admit 
 is at direct variance with the commands of 
 God: and so far should the number of its fol¬ 
 lowers be from affording any conscientious 
 Protestant an argument in favour of its support, 
 that the very contrary should be the case, for 
 it furnishes the very best reasons for encreased 
 diligence and zeal, in supplying every possible 
 means of endeavouring to awaken so many 
 from their delusions, and of rescuing almost a 
 nation from ignorance and superstition, and 
 therefore ruin. It should be borne in mind 
 throughout not only what has been said, but 
 what is to follow, that the question is not how 
 far the Roman Catholic Church should be tole¬ 
 rated, or not interfered with, but it is whether 
 it shall be paramount in Ireland, and that too 
 accomplished by the previous destruction of the 
 Protestant Church. Even, however, supposing 
 that the result does not go the full length of 
 the utter destruction of the latter, the question 
 comes to this: whether a true church, and a 
 false church, (because churches so utterly dif- 
 
ferent cannot both be true,) shall be set up, side 
 by side, in the same country, equally supported, 
 protected and encouraged, by the legislature ? 
 The proposition is indeed absurd—and yet any 
 act of government which in any way legalizes 
 Popery in Ireland, either as to its support 
 or diffusion, is, in fact, so far endeavouring 
 to accomplish this extraordinay state of 
 things. 
 
 It would appear then from what has been said, 
 that if there was not a single Protestant in Ire¬ 
 land, the obligation is strong and paramount 
 upon Protestant England, to support the truth 
 strenuously, and to diffuse its pure light among 
 those who sit in darkness. It is not from the 
 numbers of the Roman Catholics of Ireland 
 that she is to take her sense of duty, but from 
 her own conscientious aspirations to support 
 and establish what she conscientiously believes 
 to be the truth. The obligations which are im¬ 
 posed upon her she cannot forego for any paltry 
 object of temporary expediency or worldly poli¬ 
 cy—but she is bound to do as much, in the pre¬ 
 sent condition of Ireland, for the propagating 
 and asserting the truth, as if there was not a 
 Roman Catholic in the country. She is not 
 
called upon to impose, by force, a new religion, 
 or to introduce, by any exercise of authority 
 and power, any experimental scheme of doc¬ 
 trine ; but she is bound, by obligations which 
 cannot be broken, and duties which cannot be 
 overruled, to maintain now what she planted in 
 Ireland three hundred years ago—what the 
 whole scheme of her civil policy was contrived 
 to uphold—what is fundamental in that scheme, 
 and is compounded in all her laws, and in all her 
 institutions—what formed the titles to property 
 
 4 
 
 —and what constituted the very essence of com¬ 
 pacts made between the state and individuals 
 with a view to perpetuity. 
 
 During the long interval of the three ages 
 which have passed away since England shared 
 her own reformed religion with her sister land, 
 there was indeed much neglect to reprove, much 
 impolicy to blame, much indolence to con¬ 
 demn; but, in spite of all those, the reformed 
 religion is ardently, earnestly, and zealously 
 professed, cherished, and maintained, by a 
 vast portion of the Irish people—in number a 
 nation—in property almost owners of the soil 
 of Ireland—in spirit thoroughly British—ex¬ 
 hibiting, under a variety of different situations 
 
 c 3 
 
34 
 
 and circumstances, the highest and noblest cha¬ 
 racteristics of Englishmen, in their love of truth, 
 religion, liberty, and loyalty. And is it this 
 mighty portion of her own legitimate children 
 whom she is expected to insult and aggrieve, 
 by suffering their church and their clergy to be 
 stripped and spoliated, upon the poor specu¬ 
 lation of conciliating the restless enemies 
 of both ? Is it, indeed, possible to imagine 
 for a moment that such an infatuation could 
 possibly be contemplated by the councils of the 
 wisest and greatest of people. Not only is Eng¬ 
 land bound to struggle for the truth to the last, 
 as a positive duty , never to be compromised, 
 but awful will be the consequences to herself, 
 should she turn her back upon that truth, or 
 permit it to be prostituted for any political expe¬ 
 riment. 
 
 And what is the railing accusation brought 
 against the Protestant Church in Ireland ? 
 That a sect, blindly influenced by its own 
 clergy, who hate almost to detestation the 
 Protestant clergy, do not like to be the means 
 of paying to such Protestant clergy, their pro¬ 
 perty accruing to them out of the produce of 
 the land, and which description of rents those 
 
35 
 
 tenants to the lay landlord had virtually un¬ 
 dertaken to pay in their contract with him. 
 The hostile motive of the farmer and the pea¬ 
 sant is referable to the priest; and the essence 
 of the case is this—that the church is to be 
 cast down, and the clergy plundered and per¬ 
 manently reduced, because the Roman Catho¬ 
 lic clergy of Ireland have stirred up their fol¬ 
 lowers to resort to violence against both. A 
 liberality , equally questionable in its honesty, 
 as in its motives, pretends to support this enor¬ 
 mous attempt, by insinuating that the destruc¬ 
 tion of the temporalities of the church could 
 not affect her existence; spiritually, it is readi¬ 
 ly admitted that it is not in the power of law¬ 
 less force, or infatuated authority, to injure her; 
 but, humanly speaking, a deprivation of her 
 temporal means of support, must impair her 
 human capacity to preserve her existence. 
 The distinction between the Protestant religion 
 and the Protestant Established Church has been 
 made by Dr. Doyle; “and that very single- 
 minded and ingenuous divine (as Dr. Philpotts, 
 now Bishop of Exeter, observes, in a most 
 able and vigorous pamphlet) has instructed his 
 readers, that to strip the Established Church 
 
36 
 
 in Ireland of what he conceives its ill-gotten 
 and ill-employed possessions, would rather 
 strengthen than impair the Protestant religion ; 
 of course, therefore, to accomplish this end, 
 would not be inconsistent with the oath”— 
 that is the oath which it was proposed to ad¬ 
 minister to Roman Catholics by the bill of 
 1825. The resignation with which Dr. Doyle 
 would bear the stripping of the Established 
 Church of its possessions, can be easily ima¬ 
 gined, as well as the patience with which the 
 experiment of the happy effect of this, upon 
 Protestantism generally, both as to religion 
 and property, would be waited for. The in¬ 
 come of the church, however, is one of the 
 means of supporting her conformably with the 
 difference there is in the state of society of 
 this day, and in the days of apostolic simpli¬ 
 city. It would be an unprofitable austerity to 
 religion, to assume the habits and manners of 
 the early ministers of the Gospel, in the pre¬ 
 sent age of refinement and knowledge; nay, 
 it would not only be absurd in itself, but ruin¬ 
 ous to the cause of religion generally, (that is 
 humanly speaking,) to keep her church alone 
 stationary as to circumstances, where every 
 
37 
 
 thing around her, and every thing with which 
 she is in connexion or intercourse, is in progress 
 of alteration and improvement; therefore, as in 
 such a condition of things the education for the 
 ministry must be such as to qualify for, and 
 keep pace with, the subsequent station in soci¬ 
 ety in which that ministry is to be placed in 
 order to be efficient, so the means afforded for 
 holding and maintaining such a position must 
 also be suitable and sufficient—let those means 
 be reduced below their necessary and relative 
 standard, and, in the nature of things, not only 
 the ministry, but the visible church herself, will 
 become, to a certain degree, contemptible and 
 perhaps comparatively useless. If, however, it 
 were intended that the Christian Church should 
 be always at a stand, never applying itself to 
 the variations in society, the better to “ win” 
 some of those of whom the variations in society 
 are composed, there never was a church which 
 exhibited a less striking adherence to apostolic 
 poverty and simplicity than that of which Dr. 
 Doyle is so shining a member. Those splendid 
 fanes which Roman Catholic ecclesiastical gran¬ 
 deur has constructed, and left to be occupied by 
 the professors of a purer faith, plainly demon- 
 
38 
 
 strate that apostolical humility and conformity 
 were not always a characteristic of the Church 
 of Rome; nor that the tender solicitude of the 
 present day for an equal conformity on the score 
 of wealth to the apostolic standard, was not 
 always a matter of such anxiety and care to that 
 church, when we find that, after having obtain¬ 
 ed almost two-thirds of the property of the 
 kingdom, the legislature thought it necessary to 
 interfere by legal enactment to prevent her 
 sweeping within her insatiable grasp the portion 
 which remained. 
 
 It is often said, although without a very 
 scrupulous regard to fact, that the legislature in 
 England transferred the tithes to the Protestant 
 Church when Protestants became the more 
 numerous party, but that in Ireland it adopted 
 a course the reverse, and, in its nature, sub¬ 
 versive of obedience to the laws—this is histo¬ 
 rically false; the politic governors of England, 
 at the time of the Reformation, knew well that 
 a portion of the people, after a close acquaint¬ 
 ance with the profligate and voluptuous lives of 
 the Romish clergy, were almost without any 
 religion—that multitudes were neutral, and 
 ready to declare in favour of either—and al- 
 
39 
 
 though many were converted to the Reformed 
 church, still that considerable numbers remain¬ 
 ed attached to their old and convenient super¬ 
 stitions. In this state of things it was not so 
 much to accommodate the faith of those con¬ 
 verted to Protestantism, that the legislature 
 transferred the tithes to the Protestant Church, 
 as it was to enable that church and its clergy 
 to draw towards the reformed religion, by due 
 spiritual instruction, the out-standing members 
 still attached to Popery, or still indifferent; 
 and also to disable Popery, by taking aw T ay 
 from it so large a portion of the maintenance 
 of its church. The Protestant religion in Ire¬ 
 land was transplanted, not only as a conscien¬ 
 tious duty, but as a part of English policy—of 
 such policy as England showed towards her¬ 
 self for her own benefit and happiness. There 
 were not, perhaps, in all Ireland, in Queen 
 Elizabeth’s days, many more inhabitants than 
 there are at present Episcopalian Protestants. 
 Except the English functionaries and the mili¬ 
 tary there were but few Protestants; but it 
 was for the purpose of encreasing their num¬ 
 bers that the endowments and revenues ap¬ 
 propriated for the church and clergy were li- 
 
40 
 
 mited to the Reformed one, and taken from the 
 Church of Rome On the same principle, if 
 those temporalities be now taken from the 
 Church of England, the like consequences must 
 follow—namely, that as the Church of Rome 
 pined in her power and languished in her in¬ 
 fluence, after the loss of her temporalities in 
 England, so the Church of England must suf¬ 
 fer, and still in a greater degree, if those tem¬ 
 poralities be wrested from her, whether for 
 confiscation or any other purpose. She will 
 suffer in a still greater degree , because she does 
 not profess any superstitious power over the 
 minds and consciences of her professors, the 
 undue exercise of which enables the clergy of 
 the Church of Rome to wring from their flocks 
 any sums which they may think fit to demand. 
 This circumstance, alone, places the two churches 
 upon an entirely different footing, and there¬ 
 fore the consequences of the loss of her tempo¬ 
 ralities to the Church of Rome were quite op¬ 
 posite to what they would be to the Reformed 
 Church; she being able to exert a power which 
 more than compensates her for them, has been 
 enabled, comparatively, to defeat the policy of 
 England at the time of the Reformation. The 
 
41 
 
 visible Church of England not being able from 
 her very nature to employ any such influence, 
 as a human institution, would sink with the loss 
 of her income. 
 
 What has been here adverted to, may be 
 summed up with asking, if England found her¬ 
 self bound to support the Established Church 
 in Ireland at a great expense of blood and 
 treasure for three centuries, upon what ground 
 can she refuse to do so now ? When she es¬ 
 tablished Protestantism in this country, there 
 were scarcely any Protestants in it; and she 
 then proceeded upon the principle of support¬ 
 ing truth , regardless of the question of num¬ 
 bers between those who followed it, and those 
 who did not. She is still under the same obli¬ 
 gation, and she has in aid of that obligation 
 (if any aid can make it stronger) the vast in¬ 
 crease of Protestants in Ireland—the settle¬ 
 ment of her system in the land—the establish¬ 
 ment of her laws, as well as of her religion 
 and church—the mass of interests which have 
 grown out of that religion, as connected with 
 her government, and which could not be un¬ 
 settled, particularly by any sudden and sum- 
 
42 
 
 mary exertion of power, without tearing out, 
 by the roots, things of precious value to her, 
 and straining, to the very last thread, the liga* 
 ment that unites her to Ireland. 
 
48 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Having in the former chapter stated what ap« 
 pears to be the duty of England respecting her 
 conduct towards the Established Church in Ire¬ 
 land, it is proper to consider what the conse¬ 
 quences are likely to be to her temporal inte¬ 
 rests, should she neglect or overlook the con¬ 
 scientious discharge of that duty. And pre¬ 
 vious to entering upon this part of our subject, 
 it may perhaps be of advantage, in order to ob¬ 
 tain a clearer view of it, briefly in the first in¬ 
 stance to touch upon some of the peculiar cir¬ 
 cumstances connected with the condition of Ire¬ 
 land at present, which are £< sui generis,” and 
 which considerably increase the difficulties of 
 legislation respecting her, as well as often ren¬ 
 der the application of British laws and the ope¬ 
 ration of the British constitution ineffectual. 
 
 Perhaps Ireland is the only country in the 
 
44 
 
 world, in which a large portion of the inhabi¬ 
 tants fix their minds upon changes in property, 
 and calculate upon such changes occurring as 
 the fulfilment of an expected blessing. In most 
 other places, what the sword had originally ac¬ 
 quired, policy has protected, by framing such 
 laws and institutions as were the most likely 
 to secure the permanent settlement of whatever 
 property may have been committed to new pro¬ 
 prietors ; while it is left to time to consolidate 
 and strengthen such arrangements, and to ex¬ 
 tinguish together the hopes of resentment and 
 the speculations of vindictive feeling. But, in 
 Ireland, resentment and revenge have never 
 been permitted to slumber, but have passed, 
 with inconsiderable mitigations, through gene¬ 
 rations ; and the calculations to which those 
 passions give rise, have seriously engaged the 
 minds of thousands, who, having habituated 
 themselves to look for changes favourable to 
 their own desires, fostered notions at variance 
 with a settled condition of such things as rest¬ 
 ed upon the foundations of mere law, and ac¬ 
 quired a predisposition towards new inroads 
 upon the sanctity of property, which in all na¬ 
 tions constitutes one of the main pillars of so- 
 
45 
 
 ciety. Religion afforded a strong direction to 
 this state of thinking and feeling; the property 
 of the Church had passed into new hands, as 
 well as the property of the laity, and the mi¬ 
 nisters of the unreformed Church did not fail 
 from time to time, as they perceived the dispo¬ 
 sitions of the multitude to be most accessible 
 to touching representations, to press upon their 
 minds statements of their humiliation, and also 
 of such sufferings as a long and desperate strug¬ 
 gle had brought upon them. Pastoral addresses 
 are not wanting to confirm what is here stated, 
 and, from Dr. Hussey down to Dr. Doyle in¬ 
 clusive, those documents, however serious in 
 their designations, will be found in their tenor 
 and construction to be political provocatives, 
 deeply compounded with religious rancour.— 
 Motives and influences like those adverted to, 
 could not have been so long at work, without 
 producing their natural fruits; and times and 
 circumstances being auspicious to their matu¬ 
 rity, we have the Church property attacked, not 
 only for the reason before adverted to, but be¬ 
 cause it is the weakest in its defence—because 
 liberalism has paralized its natural supporters, 
 and the prevailing passion for change appears 
 
46 
 
 to be affecting every sound principle of policy, 
 as well as of justice. In the course of a few 
 months the laws have been trampled on almost 
 without a struggle, as if their wholesome power 
 had departed from them; murder and outrage 
 for a time had steeped some of the finest, and 
 but a little before, the most contented districts 
 in Ireland, in the blood of some of their most 
 unoffending inhabitants; and assassins went so 
 far as to appoint, without any fear of detection, 
 the conditions upon which life might be spared, 
 whilst proscription, persecution, and in some 
 instances death, impended over every Minister 
 of the Established Church, and over every man 
 who hesitated to be an accessory to his plunder, 
 and the starvation of him and his family. 
 
 The authors of this wicked league calculated 
 that their enterprise against the clergy would 
 try the fidelity and zeal of the Government, as 
 well as of the Protestants of the United King¬ 
 dom generally, not only to their profession of 
 faith, but also to those principles of civil liberty 
 which are its offspring. The Church has no 
 combatants of her own to put forward for her 
 defence against physical aggression—her pro¬ 
 tection lies altogether in the vigorous and just 
 
47 
 
 administration of the laws; and where those 
 laws are insufficient to meet the difficulty— 
 where the ordinary expedients of the time fail 
 to supply satisfactory means of defending and 
 protecting her—her only resource lies in the 
 firmness of Protestant England, and in the wis¬ 
 dom and energy of Parliament. But should 
 she not find prompt and vigorous protection 
 from both of these—a protection of such a na¬ 
 ture as to show that no compromise will be 
 permitted—or no political expediency allowed 
 to interfere with a firm and decided sense of 
 duty—the ruin of the Irish Church in her pro¬ 
 perty, may be reckoned upon as a certain con¬ 
 sequence. It is upon this ground the attempt 
 was made. How far the experiment has suc¬ 
 ceeded as yet, the condition of the Irish clergy 
 can best attest. 
 
 But the consequences of such success are 
 pretty obvious. Does any one imagine that the 
 authors of those designs will stop here ? Hav¬ 
 ing pushed open the door that leads to the ac¬ 
 quisition of any or every description of property 
 they may desire, will they stop on the threshhold, 
 when nothing remains to prevent their further 
 progress ? No, truly : should they succeed 
 
48 
 
 either in part or entirely against the Church, 
 whom, it might be supposed, without under¬ 
 valuing the understandings or principles of the 
 Protestants of Great Britain and Ireland, every 
 Protestant would be ready to defend—what 
 is to discourage the same party, exulting in 
 their success, from attacking the properties of 
 the absentees —a class of Irish proprietors 
 whom clamour, prejudice, and some reason and 
 justice, have rendered peculiarly obnoxious, es¬ 
 pecially to that class of society to whose phy¬ 
 sical labours so large a share of the injury of 
 the Protestant clergy is to be imputed ? If the 
 contrivers and directors of the warfare against 
 the Church, raise the outcry against the estates 
 of absentees, what is to prevent their compelling 
 the lawful owners of them to give them up, 
 either for some compensation, or for none ? If 
 there be no greater exertion made to preserve 
 their property, than as yet there has been to 
 preserve that of the Church, with all its solemn 
 guarantees from the King, Lords, and Com¬ 
 mons of the realm, what is there which can 
 save them from suffering a similar wrong to 
 that of which the clergy now complain in the 
 ear of an enlightened and religious nation ? If 
 
49 
 
 tenants paying rents to the agents of absentees 
 be dealt with as persons paying tithe rent to 
 clergymen have been, a similar result must fol¬ 
 low—the same machinery of “passive resistance” 
 —the same sanguinary expedients which obliged 
 the tithe payer to keep his tithe rents in his 
 pocket, is not likely to be withheld, when the 
 same authority, and the same influence happen 
 to be applied to the tenants of absentees. Ab¬ 
 sentees themselves may rely upon the justice of 
 their case? their legal rights, and the wisdom and 
 energy of parliament; but if these were sound 
 and warrantable confidences, the clergy could 
 not be reduced to the melancholy condition 
 in which many of them are now placed. There 
 will comparatively be no sympathy for the ab¬ 
 sentees— current notions of policy will be against 
 them; and the fatal precedent of the spoliated 
 clergy of Ireland, stripped by combination and 
 outrage of their legal rights, will weigh them 
 down with its tremendous authority. This sort 
 of property has been looked on with craving 
 desires for many a year ; and if there was to have 
 been a comparison hazarded between the dura¬ 
 bility of that and church property, but two year 
 since, it is hardly too much to presume that th 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 decision would incline towards the latter; so, 
 
 • that it would be but an act of prudence in those, 
 upon whom considerations of this sort should 
 press among the other obligations of their duty, 
 not to confine the question about meddling with 
 church property, to the narrow ground of legis¬ 
 lative power to do so—but to weigh what a 
 forceable spoliation of it must be, as an example 
 in the eyes of the nation at this time, and that 
 nation Ireland. 
 
 But it will be seen in the end that the prece¬ 
 dent of the Church will not stand alone—its 
 parallel will probably be found in the first in¬ 
 stance in the fate of the absentee property—and 
 both may then be too powerful for those Irish 
 proprietors, whom an eloquent member of par¬ 
 liament, once called in some of his rhetorical 
 displays at aggregate meetings — 44 Cromwellian 
 Proprietors.” It is not to be doubted, but that the 
 same force, violence and villainy, by which the 
 Irish portion of the united churches of England 
 and Ireland, has been almost crushed, will be 
 quite competent to deal with those proprietors, 
 as if they were all ordained clergymen of the 
 Church of England. Their secular condition 
 will not protect them. A prejudice arising out 
 
51 
 
 of religion—cherished revenge, long rankling in 
 the heart, and handed down from generation to 
 generation—the impulse which the time affords 
 to desperate movements in the body of society— 
 the assistances which crafty leaders can draw 
 from the distempered state of the fi£ mighty mul¬ 
 titude”—the love of gain sophisticating with the 
 understandings of men already predisposed by re¬ 
 sentful recollections against “ the Saxon,” the 
 modern soubriquet of an Irish Protestant- 
 all those things will contribute to leave the 
 “ Cromwellian proprietors” not less at the mercy 
 of conspiracies of all descriptions, than the clergy 
 of the Established Church have been. It may 
 be fancied that the law is able to protect pro¬ 
 perty; it is however clear, that it is not by a 
 mere ordinary appeal to it; and sanctioned by 
 time, possession and use, as proprietors may think 
 themselves—and safe in their estates under such 
 circumstances, some adventurous reasoner may 
 arise to dispute even their legal right to posses¬ 
 sion, though he may rest his arguments upon 
 grounds not more valid in themselves (but 
 equally influential in the minds of the modern 
 rulers over Irish property,) than Dr. Doyle’s argu¬ 
 ments have been, to shew that the tithes were in 
 
52 
 
 part the property of the poor. The Irish rabble 
 are not subtle logicians, but are easily satisfied 
 with any arguments, which may concur with the 
 current of their own desires; and as long as they 
 may be permitted to act towards the clergy as 
 they have already done, they can easily be 
 brought to conclude, that a dispossession in civil 
 war, is not a dispossession which should continue 
 for ever, but that the titles to forfeited estates 
 should undergo new arguments, like the treaty 
 of Limerick, a few years ago, or the tripartite 
 division of tithes at the present time. 
 
 If there be any country where the power of 
 Government should be vigilantly exerted in op¬ 
 position to inroads of any kind upon the civil 
 sacredness of property—it is Ireland. Multitu¬ 
 dinous as the changes of property have been in 
 England in times of violence, the good sense of 
 the people always looking forward to national 
 rest and union, the parent causes of all political 
 prosperity, succeeded in banishing the dreams 
 which revenge and party antipathy would be 
 likely to create; but the contrary is the case in 
 Ireland—several even in independant conditions 
 humble their understandings so far, as to render 
 themselves the dupes of their passions and pre- 
 
53 
 
 judices; and the gross mass of the people, igno¬ 
 rant and credulous to excess, are not so sensitive 
 to any description of rumours, as to those which 
 relate to the recovery of confiscated property. 
 
 In answer to this opinion it is commonly as¬ 
 serted that there is no probability of Roman 
 Catholics reseeking the possession of the for¬ 
 feited estates in Ireland, in consequence of the 
 quantity of that description of property which 
 has passed back into Roman Catholic hands, pur¬ 
 chased from Protestants, and therefore founded 
 upon their titles—and it is urged that therefore 
 no attempt will be ever made to disturb its pre¬ 
 sent owners. The argument is specious enough ; 
 but it is like many other arguments of the pre¬ 
 sent day, (< nitidusperorci, introrsum turpis” The 
 portion of forfeited property which has returned 
 to popish occupancy compared with what still re¬ 
 mains in the hands of Protestant proprietors, is 
 very inconsiderable indeed, quite insufficient to 
 afford, on that ground, any thing like an effective 
 barrier to the attempt. On this subject it may 
 be well to recur to the parliamentary evidence. 
 The report of the Commons’ Committee states:— 
 
 “ That a very large portion of the fee simple of the land in 
 Irelandis the property of Protestants.”— (Rep. Com. 245, viii.) 
 
54 
 
 The Rev. H. Montgomery says:— 
 
 “ In the three counties in which I am more particularly 
 acquainted, Down, Derry, and Antrim, I should think the 
 property held in fee by Roman Catholics, as landlords, is very 
 inconsiderable.”—( Evid. Com. 4669 .) 
 
 P. Mahony, esq. says:— 
 
 “ Seven-tenths of the rental of Ireland is vested in fee in 
 Protestant proprietors.”— (Evid. Com. 5159 .) 
 
 Stephen Wright, esq. states:— 
 
 “ Much the greatest part belongs to Protestants, there is 
 very little of it in fee belongs to Roman Catholics, scarcely 
 any.”— {Evid. Cvm. 2573 .) 
 
 R. Delacour, esq. states also in answer to the 
 question, 
 
 “ In what proportion are the lands in fee distributed be¬ 
 tween Catholics and Protestants in the county of Cork ? I 
 cannot form any calculation, but I am persuaded a very great 
 proportion is in the hands of Protestants.”— (Evid. Com.Zlll.) 
 
 Admitting, however, that Roman Catholics pos¬ 
 sessed ten times the amount they do, what would 
 that signify ? could not an exception be made in 
 their favor ? or what is much more likely, they 
 themselves would be made the victims of the 
 conspiracy—the few , a very few indeed, would 
 be sacrificed to the many , whom nothing would 
 satisfy, until the descendants of those who were 
 originally dispossessed, were replaced in the en¬ 
 joyment of those estates. And for what other 
 purpose are the ancient title deeds by which 
 
55 
 
 those estates were formerly held, now so scru¬ 
 pulously preserved, as they notoriously are, by 
 the lowest Irish peasant, whose ancestor may 
 have been in possession of them ? or why are 
 their demarcations, boundaries, and names, so 
 jealously watched, and accurately retained, ex¬ 
 cept in the expectation that in some of those 
 convulsions which are so frequently recurring in 
 Ireland, those may be the means of replacing him 
 in the possession of what he has been always led 
 to think he was unjustly deprived of, and never 
 will give up the hope of again obtaining. 
 
 It is perhaps to be referred to this settled habit 
 of thinking, that in all the struggles of Irish 
 parties to contest the dominion of the British 
 crown, ill-matched as the contending sides were, 
 and sure as the result was to be adverse to the 
 Irish, they always preferred the appeal to force, 
 to the wiser and happier policy of amalgamating 
 with their British brethren, and thereby securing 
 to themselves a share in the blessings of peace, 
 industry, trade and commerce. The extravagant 
 ambition of their leaders, their want of all just 
 qualifications for conducting the interests of any 
 large portion of the people, the rancorous pro¬ 
 vocations by which the multitude were excited 
 
56 
 
 to lend themselves to speculative and abortive 
 rebellions, intercepted the growth and increase 
 of those blessings, which were essential to Irish 
 prosperity; and those leaders hazarded the most 
 valuable stakes upon the possible chance of suc¬ 
 cess, by which they hoped to reconquer the pos¬ 
 session of forfeited property. This chance is the 
 point, to which all the troubles, agitations, con¬ 
 spiracies, and insurrections in Ireland faithfully 
 turn. And as each of those periods of disquiet 
 appears to affect the general stability of society, 
 the commonest observer may perceive a corres¬ 
 ponding endeavour among the Roman Catholic 
 leaders, to trace distinctions between the abori¬ 
 ginal Irish and those of 66 Saxon” descent. Not 
 to recur to past times, and their barbarous atro¬ 
 cities, the days in which we live afford a sufficient 
 evidence, that there prevails a strong desire in 
 the minds of the leaders of the modern agitation , 
 to keep the Irish as separate in feelings and in 
 views, as possible, from the “ Saxons.” Dr. 
 Doyle with as much ease as if common sense or 
 policy could sanction the expression, calls the 
 descendants of British people after centuries of 
 naturalization in Ireland, i( settlers,” and he la¬ 
 bours to insinuate that they have only a permis- 
 
57 
 
 sive title to remain in Ireland, until the Irish shall 
 deem themselves strong enough to banish them 
 for ever. The Rev. Mr. M^weeney* boldly 
 avowed at a controversial meeting held at Carlow 
 a few years ago, that the Roman Catholic chil¬ 
 dren were trained up to look upon Protestants 
 as the descendants of robbers and plunderers ! 
 
 From what has been observed, it will strike 
 every reflecting man, that it should be a main 
 principle in the policy of the state, never to 
 sanction in Ireland any infraction on the sacred¬ 
 ness of property, upon any grounds however 
 plausibly advanced. In all countries that are 
 governed according to fixed laws, changes in pro¬ 
 perty can only take place, according to law; a 
 conspiracy for the spoliation of any class or order 
 of men in the state, is a crime against the law, 
 and an essential wrong' against society itself— 
 and to legislate upon the results of any such con¬ 
 spiracy, which being supported by open force, 
 and maintained by a system of enormities, may 
 
 * In the speech reported as having been delivered by this 
 gentleman, it is said the children of his persuasion are bred up 
 from their cradles in a spirit of hostility to the Protestants 
 and their faith—and that the name of Protestant is embla¬ 
 zoned on their young minds with feelings of detestation! 
 
 I) O 
 
58 
 
 have reached a point of wicked success, is to 
 make a solemn abandonment of all moral prin¬ 
 ciple, as well as of every other principle, safe, 
 honorable, and advantageous to any Christian 
 community. It is in the nature of a bounty to 
 make enterprizes against the stable order of the 
 realm, to consecrate by legal forms to-day, what 
 was yesterday a guilty act—and it is not within 
 the reach of human foresight to discern, what 
 the future consequences may be, of such a pro¬ 
 ceeding, to the very existence of British society. 
 The property of the Church, though not yet 
 converted to any new ownership, or applied to 
 any new fiscal project, is forced, to a certain ex¬ 
 tent at least, out of the hands of its rightful pro¬ 
 prietors. The seekers after ancient confiscations 
 who got up the warfare against her, have tri¬ 
 umphed, by means of the abominable measures 
 with which the conspiracy was carried on; and 
 the legislature, that is the sound and just portion 
 of it, appears to be embarrassed, how to appease the 
 triumphant iniquity which has almost pauperized 
 the clergy, and how to render that clergy an act 
 of charity , instead of an act of justice . Let no 
 man imagine that this wicked act will stand an 
 isolated instance of a conquest made over laws 
 
59 
 
 and justice in the modern history of the United 
 Kingdom. The practical prologue to all the 
 revolutions with which our modern annals are so 
 thickly crowded, has been, an attack upon the pro¬ 
 perty of the Church. The other orders of the state 
 have borne the confiscation of her possessions with 
 philosophic resignation; legislation compromised 
 with wrong, and the gulph widened,—until 
 legislature, property, law, order, were all swal¬ 
 lowed up, and the people broken hearted from 
 their own success, supplicated from despotism the 
 only protection which the circle of expedients 
 could supply. Sure and certain it is, that the 
 same machinery of passive resistance to the laws, 
 if it be able to succeed against the Church, will 
 not find other kinds of property in Ireland im¬ 
 pregnable to its activity, perseverance, and influ¬ 
 ence. 
 
 In corroboration of the opinions which have 
 been stated, relative to the effect upon all pro¬ 
 perty, which either a total or partial spoliation of 
 that belonging to the Church in accordance with 
 the present outcry, or in obedience to the exist¬ 
 ing conspiracy, is likely to have, the following 
 extracts from the parliamentary evidence are se¬ 
 lected. His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, 
 
60 
 
 admirably expresses bis opinions in reply to a 
 question put to him before the Lords Commit¬ 
 tee. 
 
 “ Do you suppose that if the resistance to tithes should he 
 successful it would stop there ? I am fully convinced, as far 
 as my own observations and conjectures can go, that it would 
 not. If by a measure of government, indeed tithes were to be 
 abolished, if the whole of church property were to be confis¬ 
 cated by law, the evil might stop there ; but I am fully con¬ 
 vinced, that (in Ireland especially,) when men found they 
 could withhold payment of lawful debts, and could encroach 
 upon their neighbours’ property by the strong hand, they 
 would immediately proceed from one thing to another—and 
 I have ascertained as a fact, in some instances, that there are 
 tenants who scarcely pay any rent at all, but whose landlords 
 dare not turn them out, and they are forced to accept anything 
 they offer, or nothing, from knowing that probably their lives, 
 and certainly their property would not be safe if they did. If 
 therefore the resistance to tithes is to go unrestrained, and 
 an unlimited concession be made to the resistance, I have no 
 doubt that rent in a great many instances, if not in all, will 
 follow.”— (Evi. Lords. 102.) 
 
 Mr. P. Mahony (than whom a more compe¬ 
 tent judge, or one better acquainted with Ireland, 
 could no where be found,) gives something of a 
 similar opinion, he says— 
 
 “ I should desire to preserve to the church for ever the in¬ 
 comes it at present enjoys; I can never consent to despoil 
 her, for I am convinced that whenever spoliation occurs, re¬ 
 volution and general confiscation will he near at hand." — (Evi. 
 Com. 5271.) 
 
61 
 
 To this may be added another most respect¬ 
 able testimony, that of J. S. Dennis, esq.— 
 
 “ I look upon the tithe system as merely a stalking horse, 
 that is, only a cloak for other proceedings. What in your 
 opinion is the real object those persons have in view ? I 
 think their objects is an attack upon property, as soon as they 
 get what they want with respect to tithes; they wish now to 
 intimidate by attacking tithes, and if they succeed, then they 
 will attack private property. Do you think, if they are suc¬ 
 cessful in their opposition to tithe, that rent and other 
 property will be likely to suffer ? I certainly think they will 
 attempt to make the same attack upon other property.”— 
 (Evi. Com. 4296.) 
 
 Gerald Fitzgerald, esq. states— 
 
 “ I think they are beginning to make serious objections to 
 the payment of rent within this last month, a number of 
 meetings have taken place in the county of Tipperary, to pre¬ 
 vent the collection of tithe—and at those meetings I have 
 been informed that they discussed the best mode of regulating 
 the rent; what such and such lands ought to be worth.”— 
 (Evi. Lords. 15.) 
 
 Major Brown states— 
 
 “ What would be the effect of getting rid of the payment 
 of tithes now ?—Many of the country gentlemen think they 
 would attack rents next.”— (Evi. Com. 1252.) 
 
 Although the condition of the Irish Church 
 may receive little or no succour from the just 
 apprehensions of other proprietaries, or from the 
 sympathies of the worldly minded, yet surely 
 
62 
 
 there is in the sacrifice of her ultimately—and in 
 the plunder and ruin of her clergy at this moment, 
 something to touch the understanding of the most 
 callous politician, either in power or out of it. The 
 dangers of the example of a Church, deliberately 
 overthrown by process of legislation, in compli¬ 
 ance with the outrages, and the political requisi¬ 
 tions of an organized conspiracy, England her¬ 
 self may be soon brought to learn. She has her 
 full proportion of Jacobins ready to take their 
 part in any scheme of innovation. She has the 
 old enemy of her faith also strongly entrenched 
 within her own confines, crafty, yet ardent, and 
 abounding in ambitious projects to obtain politi¬ 
 cal power. She has an enlightened and able 
 body of dissent, the power of which has not been 
 measured in modern times against her moral 
 strength. All these things considered, with the 
 evil spirit of the times, call for the greatest cir¬ 
 cumspection, fortitude, and wisdom. There is, 
 indeed, no safety ground to be discovered in ha¬ 
 zardous experiments and speculations. The pri¬ 
 mary duty of a free and wise Government, such 
 as becomes the greatest and happiest monarchy 
 which the world ever saw, is, to take its stand 
 upon the ancient fundamentals—upon the Norma 
 
63 
 
 of the realm of England—to put forth its power 
 in salutary sternness—and to rebuke the deceitful 
 theories which deprave the attachments of the 
 people, and loosen them from their reliance upon 
 their own laws, and the institutions which co¬ 
 exist with them—and to guard with cautious 
 zeal, the primary foundation of British prospe¬ 
 rity, her essentially Protestant constitution from 
 yielding more to the prevailing passion for 
 change, than what may clearly import to second¬ 
 ary and subaltern things, safer and more com¬ 
 modious forms and operations—indeed a great 
 and ancient nation, mightiest of the mighty in 
 power—the envy and admiration of the world, 
 holding fast in spirit and in principle by the great 
 anchorage of religion, in times of disquiet and 
 danger, must present one of the most beautiful 
 and at the same time one of the most profitable 
 spectacles to the eyes of mankind—but if she 
 once gives way in the least degree—once drags 
 but a single inch, by any internal evil impulse, 
 from this mooring ground—she will afford at last 
 one of the most deplorable exhibitions of wreck, 
 that ever beat upon the quicksands and shoals of 
 Jacobinism. It has pleased the Lord to overtake 
 the land with perils of an awful magnitude—let 
 
64 
 
 us trust that He may in liis mercy strengthen us 
 for the trials through which we are destined to 
 pass; as far, however, as human hope can relate 
 to human means, there appear to be wanting 
 those profound and master-spirits which have so 
 often preserved England, as much by their firm¬ 
 ness, as by new expedients of politic sagacity. 
 There are, however, many vigorous combatants 
 able to struggle with arduous times—enough to 
 contend with success in the cause of religion ; 
 but it is time to see the great interests of the 
 state more closely bound up together again, than 
 they have been, since the revolutionary demon of 
 the times has given throughout almost all Chris¬ 
 tendom, a shock to every thing that was valuable 
 and worth preserving. The conservative millions 
 of the united kingdom cannot, it is to be hoped, 
 see the condition of the Irish Church unmoved 
 in feeling, and unoffended in their most serious 
 principles—and to their anxious and calm con¬ 
 sideration, those observations are committed, in 
 order that they may not remain unacquainted with 
 several particulars in the condition of the Irish 
 clergy which have not yet been brought together 
 in a summary statement. Should they judge of 
 that condition as Protestants may be expected to 
 
65 
 
 do; with the generosity, and above all, that sense 
 of justice which is the boast and honor of British 
 citizens, it may reasonably be hoped, that the 
 melancholy prospects which are now before the 
 Established Church in Ireland, will rouse more 
 in their breasts than a useless sympathy—and 
 that protestant England will declare peremptorily 
 and positively, that popery shall not be establish¬ 
 ed upon her ruin in Ireland. 
 
 It may perhaps be remarked that what has 
 been said is applicable to a condition of things 
 which is not likely to take place, and that an 
 imaginary enemy has been conjured up, merely 
 for the purpose of being thrown down again— 
 that nobody ever talked of destroying the Esta¬ 
 blished Church, or substituting popery in its 
 place ; on the contrary, that the strongest assur¬ 
 ances have been given from his Majesty’s Go¬ 
 vernment, that she shall not only be maintained 
 and supported, but even placed upon a better 
 and more secure foundation than she ever stood 
 upon before. Previous to taking notice of these 
 remarks it may be here observed, respecting any 
 meditated improvement in her internal arrange¬ 
 ments in any way—that the present question is 
 not one as to reform in the Church, with respect 
 
66 
 
 either to manner or quantity , but as to destruction , 
 and so far should we, or the majority of the Irish 
 parochial clergy be, from not desiring a reform in 
 any of the acknowledged abuses, which may have 
 from time to time in the nature of things crept 
 into the arrangement or management of the 
 temporalities of the Established Church, and 
 the correction of which might tend to place her 
 in a more useful and effective condition for 
 spreading and teaching the “Everlasting Gospel” 
 —that we should be among the first to lend our 
 humble aid, towards carrying into operation so 
 desirable an object; and it is our firm belief, that 
 ninety-nine out of the hundred of the clergy of 
 Ireland would do the same. But in doing this 
 we should admit of no compromise of ’principle , 
 no expedient arrangement which would in any 
 way associate us with any system of religion to 
 which we are conscientiously opposed—and be¬ 
 fore quitting this part of the subject, it may be 
 farther observed, that all allusion to any plan of 
 Church reform has been studiously avoided in 
 those pages —that indeed is in itself, a matter of 
 so much difficulty and delicacy, and requiring so 
 able a head, and judicious a hand, to undertake ; 
 that any cursory notice of so important and ex- 
 
67 
 
 tensive a task would be highly injurious.—The 
 entire object of the present remarks, (in addition 
 to a vindication of the character and conduct of 
 the Irish clergy, from the slanders and obloquy 
 which have been heaped upon them) is to endea¬ 
 vour to shew, that upon 'principle , as well as upon 
 every sound view of policy , the Established 
 Church in Ireland should be supported and up¬ 
 held. It is by no means intended to discuss 
 what is the best manner of doing this, nor to do 
 more than protest against that manner being re¬ 
 gulated by outrage, combination, and force, or 
 directed by a popish conspiracy. 
 
 Although the Established Church may still be 
 said to have a legal existence in Ireland, in point 
 of fact, her actual existence, quoad her property, 
 may almost be questioned. In about five coun¬ 
 ties the clergy are already reduced (that is, those 
 who have not other means of support) to an ac¬ 
 tual state of mendicancy, so much so, that nume¬ 
 rous instances could be produced where clergy¬ 
 men and their families have been for months 
 past subsisting upon the charity of individuals. 
 On this subject, Joseph Green, esq. K. C. states 
 before the Committee— 
 
 “ I know some instances in which the clergy had scarcely 
 
68 
 
 the means of getting the common necessaries of life in conse¬ 
 quence of the arrears due to them.”—( Evi. Lords. 21.) 
 
 Rev. Robert Butler states also in answer to 
 the question— 
 
 “ What is the state of the clergy in these parishes ? Very 
 distressed indeed. Have there been instances of great indivi¬ 
 dual distress ? There have. Are those who have no private 
 fortune left without the means of subsistence? Yes, I can 
 state my own case as an instance. I have nothing else but 
 the income derived from my living, except I had recourse to 
 my friends and relatives, if I had not had recourse to them, I 
 should not have had where withal to procure the common 
 necessaries of life.”* — (Evi. Lords. 48.) 
 
 Gerald Fitzgerald, esq. states— 
 
 “ I know the clergy are in great destitution, men who had 
 last year an income of .£800 to £1000 a year, are this year 
 in want of the necessaries of life.” — (Evi. Com. 174.) 
 
 Colonel Sir J. Harvey states—in answer to 
 the question— 
 
 “ What are the present pecuniary circumstances of the 
 clergy?—Nothing can be more destitute or pitiable in the 
 parishes where the opposition prevails.”— (Evi. Com. 33.) 
 
 The conspiracy which has accomplished this, 
 
 * Many unfortunate cases have occurred within the last 
 year of clergymen with large families, the future provision of 
 which entirely depended upon life insurances, being compelled 
 either to give them up altogether, or sell them for little or 
 nothing, from incapacity to pay the yearly policy. 
 
69 
 
 lias now extended itself throughout the entire of 
 the south of Ireland. Giving Mr. Stanley and 
 the other members of his Majesty’s Government 
 full credit for the best intentions towards the 
 Irish Church, it can hardly be denied, that the 
 manner in which those intentions have been 
 carried into effect, has been attended with the 
 most ruinous consequences to that Church— 
 until, in his Majesty’s speech allusion was made 
 to the subject of tithes, the opposition to them 
 was very limited, confined to one or two coun¬ 
 ties at most. The stir which the subject then 
 for the first time publicly received, gave a new 
 impetus to the opponents of the clergy—that stir, 
 which with great deference to the better judg¬ 
 ment of those who made it, should never have 
 been attempted, until the laws were first com¬ 
 pletely vindicated, and a prompt and effectual 
 remedy to counteract the evil effects of the sys¬ 
 tem complained of, was at the same time brought 
 forward—such however was not the case ; Com¬ 
 mittees of both houses of parliament were ap¬ 
 pointed to consider the nature and circumstances 
 of the property of the Irish Church; and pend¬ 
 ing their proceedings, as a total stop was put to 
 all payments whatever to the clergy—many of 
 
70 
 
 them were reduced in the mean time to actual 
 beggary . During the delay consequent on this, 
 the conspiracy against the Church daily assumed 
 a more decided and formidable character— every 
 hour was made the most of in endeavouring to 
 defeat whatever measures those Committees 
 should ultimately propose ; and as the result of 
 the condition in which the conspirators against 
 the Church now find themselves, they no longer 
 adhere to their original demands, that the clergy 
 of the Established Church should only receive 
 a portion of the tithe; but her total abolition is 
 loudly and peremptorily required. It is true 
 that many fortuitous events in the peculiar situ¬ 
 ation of the country, tended much all the while, 
 to strengthen and give power to that party, 
 which, with an activity and firmness of purpose, 
 which would become a better cause, left no means 
 untried, or no opportunity escape, of advancing 
 their favourite scheme of overthrowing the Esta¬ 
 blished Church in Ireland; the most false and 
 calumniating petitions were night after night 
 presented to both houses of parliament, respect¬ 
 ing the clergy; stock-purses were formed 
 throughout the country to defeat them, and to 
 evade the laws—a regular system of operations 
 
71 
 
 was organized—the Popish leaders in parliament 
 almost stopped the business of the country, by 
 their unwearied and everlasting recurrence to 
 the subject—at home, anti-tithe agitation assum¬ 
 ed a shape that was actually formidable to the 
 existence of society—and the whole Roman 
 Catholic priesthood of Ireland, almost without 
 exception, became the marshallers and directors 
 of this clamor. Added to all these, an hasty and 
 ill-advised declaration of one of the members of 
 his Majesty’s Government was taken in its lite¬ 
 ral and naked sense, and being distorted into a 
 pledge that the present property of the clergy 
 was for ever extinguished , became the pivot upon 
 which a large portion of agitation turned. These 
 circumstances were distressing enough it is true; 
 yet still the Irish clergy looked forward with 
 much confidence to the result of the deliberations 
 of the Committees ; and the principle which Mr. 
 Stanley laid down in his first report as the de¬ 
 termination of his Majesty’s Government, that 
 a commutation of tithes into land was to be 
 effected, was generally hailed with joy and satis¬ 
 faction. This ray in the horizon was however 
 of short duration, as in the course of a few days 
 this principle was either abandoned altogether, 
 
7*2 
 
 or deferred to the judgment of a reformed par¬ 
 liament—a parliament which from its very con¬ 
 struction, will not be likely to take any deep 
 interest in the Established Church in Ireland. 
 Perhaps had the affairs of that Church been 
 arranged, even the new parliament might not 
 have thought it adviseable, again to stir the 
 question; but when the legislation for her is left 
 in their own hands, it is not perhaps unwarrant¬ 
 able for the clergy of Ireland to be apprehensive 
 of the result* Mr. Stanley has avowedly given 
 up two out of his three bills—the one he has 
 persevered in, is undoubtedly a good one, as far 
 as it goes, but it leaves what is called the “ tithe > 
 question” just as unsettled as ever ; for after all, 
 what is it but a mere preparatory bill to some 
 others which are to follow ? After a delibera¬ 
 tion of eight months it was not unreasonable to 
 expect something which would have gone beyond 
 a mere groundwork , something that would either 
 by arrangement or commutation, or enactment 
 have met, and provided for, some of the difficul¬ 
 ties of the subject, and put the affairs of the 
 Church upon a more auspicious footing—some¬ 
 thing that would have shewn that the interference 
 of his Majesty’s Government had been attended 
 
73 
 
 with some other results, besides finally and com¬ 
 pletely putting an end to the payment of tithes. 
 But in the present bill nothing of the kind ap¬ 
 pears—it merely amends that which the present 
 conspiracy in its infancy, before it arrived at the 
 hundredth part of its subsequent extent and 
 power, was able completely to defy and render 
 nugatory—and the manner of its amendment in 
 being rendered permanent and compulsory, 
 seems but little calculated to increase its power, 
 or strengthen its operation—however, it is freely 
 admitted, that much of its utility or otherwise, 
 depends upon the future conduct of Government 
 -—they may perhaps make it a good measure if 
 they please. But in the mean time, while the 
 clergy are awaiting those acts to which the pre¬ 
 sent bill is said to be only the prelude, should 
 matters continue in the same current in which 
 they have proceeded for the last year ; long be¬ 
 fore the contemplated measures for their relief 
 come into operation, the majority of them will be 
 houseless wanderers from door to door. These 
 circumstances taken in connexion with the spirit 
 which is abroad, and the open and acknowledged 
 declarations of abolition, from the opposite party, 
 fully warrant the suspicions which have given 
 
 E 
 
74 
 
 rise to these pages, and authorize the clergy of 
 the Established Church, one and all, to appeal 
 to the Protestant feelings in both countries, to 
 come forward in their support, and not to per¬ 
 mit Government to be forced into measures, 
 which (without passing any opinion farther than 
 we have done, as to the line of policy adopted 
 by them) we give them full credit for being- 
 anxious to avoid—and which should they be 
 compelled to accede to, must end in the des¬ 
 truction of both England and Ireland—let liberal 
 men sneer as they may at the opinion. 
 
 
75 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Of the character, conduct and circumstances 
 of the Irish clergy, a few additional observations 
 it is hoped will not be considered out of season. 
 The calumnies against them have extended far 
 and wide, for their enemies are adepts in de¬ 
 famation—their justification, though complete— 
 though wrought out by those very enemies 
 themselves—though ample in all respects, and 
 such as to raise the admiration and respect of all 
 who witnessed it, is comparatively but little 
 known to the public, and rests in quiet record 
 in the pages of the parliamentary reports—from 
 these reports, the following creditable testimo¬ 
 nies amongst many others far too numerous to 
 recite, are extracted. Gerald Fitzgerald, Esq. 
 resident police magistrate for the county of 
 Tipperary, states:— 
 
 “ What is the general feeling of the Roman Catholic po¬ 
 pulation towards the Protestant clergy? Till latterly, I 
 
76 
 
 think the feeling has been rather an amiable one, till the 
 outcry that has been made against tithes, I think the Roman 
 Catholic inhabitants of the country at large regarded the 
 Protestant clergy with a feeling approaching in fact to affec¬ 
 tion ; they are generally excellent gentlemen in the country, 
 very amiable in their charities, and perfectly unshackled as to 
 creed or sect.”—( Evi. Lords. 48.) 
 
 Colonel Sir John Harvey, states— 
 
 “ What according to your experience is the general feeling 
 of the population within your district towards the Protestant 
 clergy? Previous to the agitation of this tithe question, I 
 can have no difficulty in saying, that they were held in the 
 utmost respect by the lower orders of the Catholic people, 
 (in any statement I make, I beg to observe, generally, that 
 I rest it upon official documents in the possession of the Irish 
 government, and upon information acquired during a period 
 of four years that I have been in my present situation ; 
 passing through the country in all directions, communicating 
 with persons of all ranks; professing no political opinion 
 myself; received with hospitality by the Nobility, Clergy, 
 and Gentry, and persons of all creeds and political opinions.) 
 From such sources of informatiou I am enabled to state, that 
 the general feeling of the lower orders of the population 
 towards the Protestant clergy, previous to the agitation of 
 this question was one of unbounded respect—they looked up 
 to them as amongst the best resident gentry in the country— 
 in all times of difficulty and distress they were the first per¬ 
 sons to whom the Catholic poor thought of applying; they 
 knew they were addicted to charity—that they made no dis¬ 
 tinction of creed in the objects soliciting their relief, and nothing 
 could be more unbounded than the feeling of respect and 
 confidence that appeared to me to be placed in them gene¬ 
 rally.”— (Evi. Lords. 25.) 
 
77 
 
 Major Brown, Sub Inspector of Police for 
 Kilkenny, states— 
 
 “ Do you think that Rectors and Incumbents are generally 
 unpopular amongst the people? I do not. Were they in 
 the habit of being charitable to the people? Very charitable. 
 And without distinction of sects? In almost every case 
 without distinction. Was there generally charity among the 
 Protestant incumbents in distributing food and medicines? 
 Yes, food, and medicines, and every other assistance.”—( Evi . 
 Lords. 132.) 
 
 Sir William P. Carroll states— 
 
 “ What has been the conduct of the Protestant clergy of 
 Ireland, and what is their general character for benevolence 
 and kindness to the people ? Most amiable and most benevo¬ 
 lent.”—( Evi . Com. 4144.) 
 
 It will be seen that those are the testimonies of 
 persons altogether unconnected with the clergy. 
 It has already been remarked that not only the 
 question of the division of tithes, several ages ago, 
 but also the various other statements put forth 
 from time to time to degrade the character and 
 conduct of the clergy, were really designed 
 for the purpose of exciting a clamour for a par¬ 
 ticular occasion. The artists of those fabrications 
 did not expect to derive more from them, than 
 a temporary advantage—a misleading of the 
 public mind, during the time that it was intended 
 to push a strong hostile measure to extremity, 
 
78 
 
 and to carry it, if possible, in a moment of public 
 delusion. With respect to the conduct and cha¬ 
 racter of the Irish clergy generally, the ordeal 
 through which both were obliged to pass before 
 the committees of the two houses of parliament, 
 has closed the lips of slander for ever, and leaves 
 nothing almost, necessary for their justification 
 to be pleaded, even by their most partial sup¬ 
 porters. This clergy, as a body, stood morally 
 arraigned by their accusers and defamers,—a sift¬ 
 ing investigation proceeded to the end—and 
 what was the result? That as a body, they 
 observed a degree of moderation in asserting 
 their rights, and in endeavouring to obtain their 
 incomes for the twelve months that preceded the 
 inquiry, which exceeded what could have been 
 expected from the holders of any description of 
 property—that their temperance under the hea¬ 
 viest wrongs, and under studied provocations, 
 was such, as became their characters as ministers 
 of the Gospel—that every effort was made to 
 avoid harsh expedients, which the laws or the ex¬ 
 ecutive government afford, under circumstances 
 of most singular severity—until almost starvation 
 became an alternative; and they were obliged to 
 seek for redress, or to fall into actual want with 
 
79 
 
 their families. Petitions setting forth their hard¬ 
 ships and sufferings were forwarded to parliament, 
 as well as to the Irish government—deputations 
 from their body were sent to entreat that some 
 steps may be adopted, such as may prevent the 
 clergy themselves from coming into hostile col¬ 
 lision with their parishioners; government was 
 supplicated to order, by its authoritative inter¬ 
 ference, the collection of tithes in those parishes, 
 in which the payment was resisted; and all costs 
 and expenses of such a proceeding, the clergy 
 offered to reimburse, or to submit to any other 
 sacrifices which the wisdom of the govern¬ 
 ment might think proper to prescribe. All 
 such applications proceeded from the consci¬ 
 entious repugnance of the clergy to become, un¬ 
 der any circumstances which almost human na¬ 
 ture could endure, by possibility accessorial to 
 painful or calamitous results to their opponents. 
 To this mild and becoming feeling, a most res¬ 
 pectable gentleman, and active magistrate for 
 four counties in Ireland, bears testimony. 
 
 “ Sir W. Gosset asked me whether if he sent troops to 
 assist us, we would undertake to collect the tithe. I asked 
 the clergymen, and they said, “ no, they would not have 
 lives lost on any account.”— (Evi. Com. 4308.) 
 
80 
 
 G. Fitzgerald, esq. states— 
 
 “ Many Clergymen have declined altogether enforcing 
 tithes—Archdeacon Cotton and Dr. Woodward have both 
 positively declined pressing their claims: Mr. Woodward said 
 he could not conscientiously seek tithe that must be enforced 
 with the probable effusion of blood.”—( Evi . Com. 173.) 
 
 In a petition presented from a large portion of 
 the clergy of the Queen’s County to his Excel¬ 
 lency the Lord Lieutenant, by the Lord Lieute¬ 
 nant of the county, it was stated, after offering to 
 submit to any expense which Government might 
 require should they think fit to interfere, 
 
 “ That our present situation is one of the greatest difficulty; 
 on the one hand, in seeking our legal rights, we apprehend, 
 should we attempt to enforce them, a fearful collision with 
 our parishioners—a collision in which party spirit will be 
 brought necessarily into powerful action, and which it is as 
 much against our consciences as Christian ministers, as it is 
 against our wishes as peaceable subjects to occasion ; on the 
 other hand, the delay, much more the relinquishment of our 
 incomes, is attended with the most serious consequences to 
 ourselves and families. Under these painful and distressing 
 circumstances, we respectfully entreat the interference of his 
 Majesty’s government, either by adopting the plan which 
 seems to us most likely to meet the exigencies of the times, 
 or any other which may seem to it, to be equally effectual 
 in maintaining the laws of the land, as they effect the 
 incomes of the Clergy of the Established Church—nor 
 should we have recourse to the demand for other and extraor¬ 
 dinary means, in order to recover and defend our rights, than 
 those which the laws place within our reach, did we not feel 
 
81 
 
 that we are altogether unable 'successfully to maintain and 
 make use of those laws, in consequence of the extended and 
 determined combination which exists to oppose and defeat 
 them—a combination enforced and supported by every species 
 of atrocity, violence, and intimidation—we therefore feel 
 assured that in the present state of the country, without the 
 direct and positive interference of his Majesty’s government, 
 we shall be utterly unable to meet the organized and systema¬ 
 tic opposition which at present exists, and is daily encreasing 
 against the rights and properties of the Church of England.” 
 
 A similar petition was presented to his Ex- 
 cellency, through the Lord Primate, and another 
 went directly from a large portion of the clergy of 
 the diocese of Leiglilin and Ferns to the same ef¬ 
 fect. These moderate and humane overtures were 
 made at the very first appearance of the conspi¬ 
 racy, when not more than two or three counties 
 were disgraced by it—the necessity was respect¬ 
 fully pressed upon his Majesty’s government in 
 Ireland, of making a stand in time against the hos¬ 
 tility, which if not opposed with a vigorous policy, 
 could not but increase. A perfect knowledge of 
 the principles of those who excited, as well as 
 of those who countenanced the conspirators—a 
 long acquaintance with their views and intentions, 
 left no doubts in the minds of the clergy of the 
 extent to which matters would proceed, if not at 
 once opposed by the power and authority of the 
 
 e 5 
 
82 
 
 state. Those observations are not intended to 
 throw the smallest blame upon his Majesty’s go¬ 
 vernment who cannot but know their duty as 
 well as those who have no responsibility for the 
 administration of it; but it must be confessed, 
 that subsequent events have rendered it most un¬ 
 fortunate, upon various accounts, that the sug¬ 
 gestions of the clergy were not adopted, and 
 something more suitable to the applicants , and 
 adapted to the necessity of the case, than a 
 uniform reference to executive power , afforded, to 
 stop a system which has since had its evils so 
 much augmented, as almost to threaten the ex¬ 
 istence of Protestantism in Ireland. 
 
 The accusers of the Irish clergy,—who have 
 every reason to rely more upon the strength of 
 their language, than of their proofs, in addition to 
 the charge of robbery and injustice, did not scru¬ 
 ple to add those of rapacity and extortion—crimes 
 which were reiterated by every spouter who set 
 out on the high road of Irish popularity . Not¬ 
 withstanding however that such accusations were 
 pealed from so many mouths, and written in so 
 many periodicals of various descriptions, the fact 
 has since appeared beyond the power of contra¬ 
 diction, that the clergy were uniformly in the 
 
83 
 
 practice of observing a moderation in their de¬ 
 mands, and a forbearance in exacting them, 
 which was no where to be found amongst the 
 holders of any other description of property.— 
 Without entering into what is called the tithe sys¬ 
 tem, as such, it is justifiable to observe, that by 
 law and indisputable right, the clergyman was 
 entitled to a tenth of the produce of the land. 
 As long as he neither demanded nor received any 
 portion beyond what legally belonged to him, 
 (if his property was to be estimated by the same 
 rules as that of all others,) it is fair to presume 
 that none of those foul and unjust charges could 
 be brought against him; but brought they were, 
 and with what degree of truth and justice, the 
 evidence before the Committees will best show. 
 Dr.Erck, the secretary of the Ecclesiastical Com¬ 
 mission, now sitting in Dublin, and the editor of 
 the Ecclesiastical Register, states in his evidence, 
 (Commons, page 624, appendix 14.) 
 
 “ From the best data I can obtain in Leinster, Munster, and 
 Connaught, the tithes lay and ecclesiastical, average from a 
 sixty-seventh to a sixtieth part of the produce ; and in the 
 province of Ulster, they average from a sixty-third to a sixty- 
 ninth part of the produce.” 
 
 The report states on the calculation of the 
 same gentleman, (245. vii.)— 
 
84 
 
 “ That the amount of tithe composition in the province of 
 Ulster is llid. per acre, and its proportion to the rental from 
 1-19 to 1-26. 
 
 Munster is Is. 2|d. per Irish acre, and its proportion to the 
 rental, from 1-15 to 1-21. 
 
 Leinster is Is. 7^d. per Irish acre, and its proportion to the 
 rental from 1-12 to 1-21. 
 
 Connaught, from 10^d. per Irish acre, and its proportion to the 
 rental from 1-20 to 1-31.” 
 
 To this it adds, 
 
 “ Mr. Griffith (the Government engineer) by a totally dif¬ 
 ferent process, arrives at a conclusion not very dissimilar. 
 He estimates that the total charges for tithe composition 
 over the whole of Ireland would average Is. 3^d. in the pound, 
 or from 1-15 to 1-16 of the rental, which he adds is calculated 
 upon a rent considerably lower than that actually paid.” 
 
 The report again states— 
 
 “ Mr. De la Cour, who, without any concert, estimated the 
 whole of Ireland at only one-halfpenny per acre more than Mr. 
 Griffith, gives a list of seven parishes in the county of Cork, the 
 rental of which is .£68,000, and the composition £4,333, or from 
 1-15 to 1-16 of the rental. Your committee have examined no 
 less than eighteen other witnesses upon this point locally ac¬ 
 quainted with various parts in the counties in the margin, 
 (Kilkenny, Tipperary, Kildare, Galway, Dublin, Queen’s 
 County, King’s County, Cork, Clare, Westmeath, Down,) 
 and the result is a singularly close approximation to the same 
 rate.” 
 
 It will be remarked that in those calculations 
 the landlord’s interest only is taken into calcu¬ 
 lation. The report states— 
 
85 
 
 “ That the gross amount of composition, if it extended over 
 the whole of Ireland, would be about £600,000. 
 
 Mr. Griffith states— 
 
 “ From the best data I have been able to procure, and from 
 my own knowledge of the value of land in Ireland, I am of 
 opinion, that the gross value of land in Ireland, rated at a 
 moderate rent, may be about .£12,715,578.* 
 
 This makes the amount of tithe composition, 
 as it is at present, less than the Qlst of the rental 
 of Ireland! 
 
 Mr. Pierce Mahony states in evidence— 
 
 “ Since I have been called upon to attend the Committee as 
 a witness, I have enquired into the relative amount of pay¬ 
 ment for tithe in this county, (England,) and in Ireland, and 
 I am satisfied that we do not pay in Ireland on e fortieth of the 
 gross produce, or annual increase of the earth, in corn, cattle, 
 &c., as tithe is frequently levied in England ; and my sincere 
 belief is, that even according to the tithe law as it stood be¬ 
 fore 1824, the clergy did not receive in the whole more than 
 from on e-third to owe-fourth of what they were entitled to de¬ 
 mand for their tithe ; and I beg leave to add, that in forming 
 this opinion I attempt to survey in my own mind the extent 
 of the annual productions of Ireland which would be titheable 
 here—( Evi . Com. 5226.) 
 
 Mr. Mahony here enters into an account of 
 the exports in produce mostly titheable which were 
 
 * Mr. Nassau, senior, in his letter to Lord Howich states 
 the rental of Ireland to be something under 13 millions, which 
 would give the same conclusion respecting the amount of tithe. 
 
86 
 
 carried into Liverpool alone , in the year 1831, the 
 gross value of which came to £4,497,708—7—6; 
 the tithe upon which would amount to more than 
 two-thirds of what is paid throughout all Ireland ! 
 
 “ I am convinced that the generality of the clergy hy no 
 means receive the tithe they are entitled to. By the tithe they 
 are entitled to you mean the full tenth? Yes, they never 
 sought it, nor received it.—( G. Fitzgerald, esq . Evi. Com. 175.) 
 
 It will be seen from these statements that the 
 tripartite and quadripartite division has already 
 taken place. 
 
 It is only necessary to produce those state¬ 
 ments to convince any candid mind, that to what¬ 
 ever causes the forcing the clergy out of their 
 rightful possessions may be attributable, their 
 exactions either as to the amount of their incomes, 
 or to the manner in which they obtained them, 
 were not amongst the number. And the results 
 before the parliamentary committees place in a 
 most extraordinary light, either the gross igno¬ 
 rance or the gross dishonesty of those, who first 
 charged the clergy with rapacity and extortion. 
 There might indeed be individual cases of harsher 
 character, (which however if there be, did not 
 appear before either of the committees) but to 
 the Irish clergy as a body, the result of the late 
 
87 
 
 investigation, as much afforded a complete and 
 perfect vindication, as it doubtless did to their 
 enemies, mortification and disappointment. 
 
 The enormity of the incomes of the Irish cler¬ 
 gy is another of those violent imputations which 
 have been so constantly and inconsiderately al- 
 ledged against them. Here again the evidence 
 before the houses of Lords and Commons refutes 
 the charge, and brands it with falsehood and in¬ 
 justice. Mr. Griffith (Evi. Com. 282, No. 5.) 
 states— 
 
 “ That there are 2450 parishes in Ireland, and 1422 bene- 
 ficed clergymen—1539 parishes under the composition act, and 
 911 which are not. The average amount of the composition 
 of tithe (lay and clerical) in those 1539 parishes is .£287 
 9s. 6d.” 
 
 Rating all the tithes as stated in the parliamen¬ 
 tary report (245. xii.) to be £600,000, and de¬ 
 ducting £50,000 as belonging to bishops, cathe¬ 
 drals, collegiate churches, &c. there remain 
 £550,000 for the parochial clergy. This sum 
 divided amongst 1422 beneficed clergymen will 
 average to each £386. 155. 7 d. to this may be 
 added the income of about 90,000 acres of glebe 
 land, at 155. per acre, amounting to £67,500, 
 (as estimated in the Christian Examiner of No¬ 
 vember 1831, page 873), from which deduct the 
 
88 
 
 incomes of at least 1000 curates, at £75 each, 
 and the remaining gross income will be £542,500, 
 which would leave each incumbent £381. 10s. Id. 
 yearly income; estimating according to report 
 the expenses of collection, losses, &c. &c. at 
 15 per cent, tliere would remain £324. 9s. 10ef. 
 as the average income of each incumbent, at 
 present arising out of tithes and lands. This 
 calculation it will be at once seen is made upon 
 the most liberal estimate—and when the expenses 
 of induction are taken into consideration, toge¬ 
 ther with those of a collegiate education neces¬ 
 sary for a clergyman, the incidents to which a 
 gentleman’s condition is liable—generally the 
 wants of a family—the obligation to maintain a 
 residence where there are no glebe houses, and 
 where there are, the heavy incumbrances which 
 almost always attend them*—the numberless 
 
 * As an instance of this, which unfortunately is but too 
 common in Ireland, the statement on this subject of the Rev. 
 James Martin before the Committee of the House of Com¬ 
 mons, is subjoined—“ Do you hold any glebe lands? I do 
 for an enormous rent, more than one half of the produce that 
 the parish in which it is situated yields.—Was it taken in 
 high times ? It was taken in high times ; a fine of <£450 was 
 given in reduction of rent, and after all my improvements it 
 is not worth 30s. at this dayj I pay £3. Is. an acre for it. 
 
89 
 
 claims in the way of schools, charities, subscrip¬ 
 tions, and so forth, the highest estimate which 
 can be made of the average income of an Irish 
 clergyman will appear anything but enormous , 
 and the division of parishes which is every day 
 taking place, as it increases the number of in¬ 
 cumbents, in the same proportion does it dimi¬ 
 nish their individual incomes. The inequality 
 of the distribution of that income, which is 
 admitted to be a serious evil, is quite another 
 matter, and has nothing whatsoever to do (as a 
 writer in the Christian Examiner justly re¬ 
 marks,) “ With the burden, as it is called, of 
 the Church Establishment on the land of Ireland.” 
 
 Was the glebe taken by the Board of First Fruits ? That 
 on which I reside was taken by the Board of First Fruits. 
 And a fine paid? Yes. What was the rent reserved? 
 ,£45. 15s. for 15 acres.” (Evi. Com. 3732.)—Rev. G. Dwyer 
 states, “ What portion of glebe have you ? 34 acres and 6 set. 
 I paid £2 an acre, and a large fine under £400, to reduce it 
 even to that dear rent.— (Evi. Com. 1710.) The writer of 
 these remarks knows an instance in the South of Ireland 
 where from the enormous rent of the glebe-house, no clergy¬ 
 man could be got to accept a perpetual curacy for a consider¬ 
 able time, and at length the matter was arranged by the 
 curate being permitted to hold it without a license, which 
 prevented him from being legally responsible for the rent— 
 neither glebe or glebe-house is inhabited by him. 
 
90 
 
 The comparative amount of the incomes of the 
 clergy of other churches might be a fair rule to 
 guide the judgment respecting the excess or 
 otherwise, of those of the established one, always 
 keeping in view the differences as to education, 
 class of society, general circumstances, &c. 
 which distinguish them from most others. On 
 the subject of the incomes of the Roman Catholic 
 clergy in Ireland, Dr. Doyle is reported to have 
 stated before the committee of the house of 
 lords, in answer to the question, 
 
 “ Have you any returns of the incomes of the Roman Ca¬ 
 tholic Priests ? I got a return upon my appointment to my 
 present office or soon after, I wished to ascertain what was 
 the amount of income in each parish, that I might in the 
 distribution of those parishes as benefices, be able to judge 
 how they ought to be distributed. At that time I found that 
 the different unions through the diocese produced on an ave¬ 
 rage, something as I recollect about .£300 per annum.” 
 
 A writer in the Christian Examiner (of Feb. 
 1831, page 124,) states, 
 
 “ I am quite certain, from the information given me by in¬ 
 telligent Roman Catholics, that many of the parish Priests 
 in Munster receive upwards of £1000 a year, some in Tip¬ 
 perary we know to rejoice in £1200.” 
 
 With respect to the incomes of the Scottish 
 clergy, Alexander Dunlop, Esq. Advocate, gives 
 in evidence, (Com, 5530.) 
 
91 
 
 “ I believe the average of the Scottish clergy’s income to 
 be .£*200 per annum, exclusive of the value of the manse and 
 glebe.” 
 
 This brings the amount of the Scottish clergy’s 
 incomes very near that of the Irish. And from 
 this there is no deduction for curates under any 
 circumstances, although the incomes of the clergy 
 vary considerably—as the same witness adds, 
 
 “ There is one clergyman in each parish, and when the 
 parish is very large, there are what we call chapels of ease, 
 with ordained ministers, who have no seats in the church 
 courts, and no part of the tithe can be allocated towards their 
 support; they are maintained generally out of the seats rents 
 of the chapel, or by private contributions.”—( Evi.Com . 5547. ) 
 
 It is unnecessary to recapitulate what has been 
 said, further than to express a hope, that this plain 
 and simple statement of facts, as they effect 
 the character, conduct, and situation of the 
 Irish clergy, may tend to remove some portion 
 of that slander and obloquy which has been so 
 abundantly heaped upon them, and to shew to 
 the Protestant community of England and Ire¬ 
 land the precise circumstances in which the Es¬ 
 tablished Church, at this moment, is placed in 
 the latter. 
 
 There is one more assertion connected with 
 the present consideration which it may be well 
 

 
 92 
 
 to take some brief notice of, namely, that the 
 present opposition to tithe is not confined to 
 Roman Catholics only, but that many Protes¬ 
 tants have equally resisted it. There can be no 
 doubt but that there are, to use the common ex¬ 
 pression, “ black sheep in every flock,” and the 
 Protestant community would be something in¬ 
 deed superhuman , if, out of so many hundreds 
 of thousands, there were not many to be found 
 unprincipled enough to lend themselves to any 
 scheme by which the payment of their debts 
 might be avoided—and others, upon whom bet¬ 
 ter, although equally mistaken motives, have a 
 similar influence. But it may be stated without 
 the fear of contradiction, that the number of 
 Protestants who have voluntarily refused the 
 payment of tithe, are exceedingly few compared 
 with the body at large; and that were the cir¬ 
 cumstances of those who do refuse, examined, 
 a good reason might be found in most cases for 
 their conduct—a reason connected with their 
 private affairs. And further, if the habits and 
 lives of such nominal Protestants were like¬ 
 wise investigated, it would be often found, that 
 they were hardly a loss to any cause they de¬ 
 serted, or an acquisition to any they espoused. 
 
93 
 
 And in winding up the subject it may be well 
 to remark, that the past page of British history 
 furnishes the most intelligible commentary to 
 the present one : the present condition of things 
 is not original in its evil, however formidable it 
 may be, and however it may require a large 
 measure of wisdom and firmness to raise up an 
 antagonist power able to dispute its progress, 
 and contract its influence. The civil and reli¬ 
 gious interests of the British race have been 
 often shaken to their foundations, and some¬ 
 times overthrown for a season ; but as they de¬ 
 clined and suffered together, so have they reco¬ 
 vered—companions always of a common fate. 
 Probably it was their joint efforts that contri¬ 
 buted to their mutual establishment—religion, 
 to the restoration of the monarchy, after its 
 long and dreary eclipse,—and this again, to the 
 vindicating of the church, and the asserting of 
 the rights of her clergy. The author of those 
 observations, although he sees the perilous pros¬ 
 pect before us, does not despair. That many 
 of the evil oppressions which have been allowed 
 to overtake the Protestant Church Establish¬ 
 ment in Ireland, may have been avoided by a 
 timely exertion of vigour and vigilance, he is 
 
94 
 
 firmly persuaded; and although from neglecting 
 to employ these in the right season there may 
 be much for both the clergy and the laity of the 
 Protestant Faith to endure, yet he humbly 
 trusts, however weighty and acute the suffering 
 may be, that much future good to the Christian 
 Church will be brought out of this present evil. 
 The Protestants, he persuades himself, will not be 
 recreants to the glorious examples of their great 
 forefathers, but will keep them with pious zeal 
 before their eyes, that they may the better 
 learn how to suffer as “ becometh the Gospel of 
 Christ,” if they be to suffer—and if not, that 
 they may be the better able to apply the fa¬ 
 vourable means which God may afford them, 
 to the taking advantage of all auspicious oppor¬ 
 tunities, which may impart a happier turn to 
 the course of events. For this, or for any other 
 object of benefit to their religion, their liberty, 
 or their country, their union, their co-opera¬ 
 tion, and, above all, their inflexible adherence 
 to their principles, are most essential. 
 
 The writer of these remarks cannot conclude 
 them without recurring to one circumstance 
 which has brought much strength and consola¬ 
 tion to his own mind, and by which he consi- 
 
95 
 
 dors the watchful Providence of the Lord over 
 his church, is strongly and clearly manifested. 
 It has pleased Him , for his own wise and gra¬ 
 cious purposes, to bring on her ministry a sea¬ 
 son of comparative persecution—to try her with 
 difficulties and sufferings to an extent which she 
 has not for a length of time felt before. But 
 how has he prepared her for all this ? how has 
 he dealt with her previously ? Has he not fit¬ 
 ted her to bear the present burden, by raising 
 up within her a gradual and increasing know¬ 
 ledge of the Gospel, and zeal for its service— 
 a zeal which is as little indebted to human agen¬ 
 cy for its existence, as it is in danger from its 
 controul. Had such troubles come upon her in 
 those days of torpor and deadness, which, it is de¬ 
 voutly to be hoped, are gone never to return, the 
 consequences might indeed have been fearful— 
 but now , has he not created a barrier before he let 
 loose the stream ? has he not provided a remedy 
 before he sent the disease ? has he not raised up 
 within her those who 44 will hold fast the profes¬ 
 sion of the faith without wavering ?” Yes, 
 blessed be his name, he has sent amongst us 
 that 44 spirit of truth” which enabled the early 
 Reformers to despise the axe and the faggot, and 
 
96 
 
 which, with the same assistance they had, will 
 enable us also to withstand the malice, persecu¬ 
 tion, and wickedness of our spiritual, as well 
 as temporal, enemies. Let us hope, eventu¬ 
 ally, that we shall be enabled to look back upon 
 what is now occurring with gratitude and with 
 joy, exclaiming in the words of the Psalmist, 
 “it is good for us to have been in trouble.” 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Extract from Minutes of Evidence before 
 Select Committee on Tithes in Ireland. 
 
 Jovis, 5° die Aprilis, 1832. 
 
 The Rev. Thomas Vigors, called in ; and Examined. 
 
 Several cases of supposed hardship and oppression 
 have been stated to the Committee in respect of the 
 collection of the composition in this parish; you are 
 requested to give such explanations as you may be 
 able to do on each of those, seriatim. The first name 
 mentioned is Edward Kavanagh ; is there such a 
 person as that in the parish of Old Leighlin ?—I do 
 not find the name of Edward Kavanagh in the books, 
 as far as I have been enabled to refer, and I have 
 carefully inspected them; I find the name of John 
 Kavanagh, and of James Kavanagh, both in that 
 district of the parish. I find John Kavanagh stated 
 to owe three years’ tithe up to the 1st of November 
 1831, and James Kavanagh two years. 
 
 F 
 
11 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 You find no name of Edward Kavanagh in the 
 parish ?—No. 
 
 The next charge relates to Kinsella and wife : that 
 is, that “ Kinsella and his wife, in 1826, under a 
 warrant of distress for one year’s tithe, having no 
 other means of paying the demand, were obliged to 
 carry on their back potatoes four miles to the next 
 market-town, to pay the amount of tithe and dis¬ 
 trainer’s fees; that they have been in great misery 
 ever since, in consequence of being obliged to buy 
 meat at a high rate on credit ?”—I have not the 
 slightest idea of any such thing having ever occurred. 
 I had never heard of it till I saw it in the Minutes 
 of Evidence, with the exception of having seen the 
 report in some of the papers of such a circumstance 
 alluded to; but I did not know till now in what 
 parish the transaction was stated to have occurred, 
 nor do I believe that my tithe agent would be guilty 
 of any act of such severity ; he is a man long re¬ 
 siding in the country; he is a person much 
 esteemed, and regarded as a man of moderation 
 in every respect; and it would not only be inconsist¬ 
 ent with my instructions to him to have been guilty 
 of any such act of severity, but it would be directly 
 contrary to the positive affidavit he has himself 
 furnished me with. 
 
 Have the goodness to read that affidavit?—“ Henry 
 Rainsford, of Leighlin Bridge, tithe agent to the 
 Reverend Thomas Vigors, for the parish of Old 
 Leighlin, in said county, came before me, and maketh 
 oath and saith, that for a period of eleven years during 
 which he has been receiver, there were only two 
 sales to enforce payment in said parish previous to 
 to the composition being established; and that since 
 that period, commencing in the year 1824, there have 
 been only two cases in which sales have been en¬ 
 forced. Deponent further saith, that he had full 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Ill 
 
 authority from said Thomas Vigors to use his own 
 discretion in all cases that might require indulgence, 
 or even remission of the demand ; and that he did 
 not in any instance act or authorize payment to be 
 enforced under circumstances of hardship or seve¬ 
 rity. Sworn March 4th, 1831. 
 
 Had you or he any opportunity of rebutting this 
 particular charge, with respect to obliging those 
 people to carry potatoes on their backs for four 
 miles ?—He had no opportunity, so far as I can 
 imagine ; I cannot conceive it possible that he had; 
 nor had I myself, until I came to London on the 3d 
 instant, when I received a printed report of the 
 evidence. 
 
 The clergyman who transmitted to you some of 
 those cases did not send you all, but only such as he 
 thought most material ?—He sent me eight, which 
 he called the prominent ones ; and he had not time 
 to copy even those correctly. 
 
 Does that book in your hand mention any subdivi¬ 
 sions which have taken place since the composition 
 took place ?—No, it does not; but I think it would 
 be. by the sum charged being so very small, almost 
 impossible to suppose there could have been a subdi¬ 
 vision in this case ; I believe it is so low as 6d. in 
 regard to one of them ; I believe I have in town with 
 me a copy of the applotment. 
 
 That book before you does not include any assign¬ 
 ing ?—No. 
 
 The next case is that of “ Patrick Devlin, of 
 Knockbawn; it is stated that he owed in 1826 a 
 year’s tithe, 5s. 4d. ; offered 5s. all the money he 
 had; the money refused; Devlin’s calf distrained ; 
 compelled to pay the 5s. 4c?., together with divers 
 fees, Is. 4c?.” ?■—I have his name before me. With 
 regard to the transactions stated, or the charge pre¬ 
 ferred, I am altogether unacquainted with it. I 
 
IV 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 never heard of it in my life, and have no idea of such 
 a case ; and I find on turning- to his account, that he 
 is stated to owe four years’ tithe up to the 1st of No¬ 
 vember 1831, under the composition. 
 
 Was any complaint ever made to you of this or 
 any other circumstance of oppression relating- to 
 them ?—I have no recollection that any complaint 
 was ever made to me of any transaction charging my 
 tithe agent with severity; but on the contrary, I 
 believe he gave general satisfaction, as affording in¬ 
 dulgence beyond what I believe, except under my 
 very special directions, he would have felt himself 
 justified in doing ; this book will furnish very strong 
 evidence of that. 
 
 Were you apprised of this particular case before 
 you came to London?—Neither of the Devlins were 
 among the names sent over to me. 
 
 The charge as to John Devlin is, “ that he owed 
 in 1826 a year’s tithe, amount Is. 'Id .; that nine 
 hanks of thread were seized for the debt; that he 
 was obliged to pay distrainer’s fees, Is. 6 d., and the 
 amount of his tithe.” Were you not apprised of this 
 charge till you came to London?—I was not. With 
 regard to the name, I did hear in Dublin in my way 
 here, that among the charges there was something 4 
 about thread or yarn seized, but I had no knowledge 
 whatever of the transaction ; I have only some gene¬ 
 ral recollection that that was alluded to, as I have 
 mentioned, in Dublin. 
 
 Have the goodness to state how John Devlin 
 stands circumstanced as to his tithe ?—He is re¬ 
 turned as owing six years’ tithe up to the 1st of No¬ 
 vember, 1831, the entire period under composition. 
 
 Was any complaint made to you?—I have not the 
 slightest recollection of it; my firm conviction is 
 that I never heard of any such complaint. 
 
 Then of course you have no reason to believe he 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 V 
 
 Was ever treated with harshness or severity?—No; 
 he appears to owe me six years’ tithe ; I have no rea¬ 
 son to suppose he was ever treated with severity; to 
 believe that, I must disbelieve a man upon his oath, 
 and a man in whom I would place every confidence 
 for acting 1 with moderation. 
 
 The next case is that of Cecilia Farrell: the 
 charge in that case is, that she was “ an old woman 
 who holds three roods of land; no rent claimed by 
 the landlord these 30 years, in consequence of her 
 great poverty and the age and infirmity of her father 
 and poor sister, an idiot, who lived with her. The 
 landlord wrote to the parson, stating the case of 
 poor Cecilia; notwithstanding, the parson claimed, 
 in 1829, tithe for the five previous years, amounting 
 to 8s. 1H. To meet the demand, poor Cecilia was 
 obliged to take to the market and sell her hens and 
 chickens, and hand the amount of them over to the 
 parson.” Have the goodness to state what the true 
 facts of that case are ?—Cecilia Farrell brought me a 
 note from her landlord, interfering in her behalf; she 
 is not an old woman, as stated there, nor did I ever 
 hear till of late, as reported, that she had a sister an 
 idiot, nor did I consider that she was a person at all 
 in distress: neither did I consider that because her 
 landlord, to whose family she was connected as a 
 follower, her brother being an under-agent of that 
 landlord, that she was therefore to have her land 
 exempt from tithe under the composition, especially 
 when she has not been charged for the 11 years pre¬ 
 ceding. For the five years antecedent to the compo¬ 
 sition being entered into, w T hen the tithe would have 
 come high upon a small complement of ground, she 
 appears not to bave been charged at all, by the affi¬ 
 davit of my agent; and the sum she has paid is not 
 more than about a twentieth, instead of the tenth of 
 the value of the crop of that year, and that only once 
 
VI 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 out of 11 years. I do not know how many yeaf£ 
 preceding her father might have had the land ; 1 am 
 not certain- whether her father be dead or not; it is 
 more reasonable to suppose he is, else why should the 
 name of the daughter be given? 
 
 Is she returned as one of the persons owing com-' 
 position ?—She is. 
 
 Have you the affidavit of your tithe-agent with 
 respect of the facts of this case ?—H have r “ Saithy 
 that in the month of November 1829, he sent Patrick 
 Brune, of Leiglin Bridge, who was authorized, as 
 driver for composition tithe-rent, for Rev. Thomas 
 M. Vigors, to distrain Cecilia Farrell, of Leshin, in 
 said county, for five years’ tithe-rent, amount 
 8s. ll^d.; and that he distrained potatoes in pits on 
 her land, which he did not remove off said land (but 
 said Cecilia Farrell paid amount of said five years’ 
 tithe in cash to said deponent (Henry Rainsford) ; 
 and said deponent (Henry Rainsford) further saith, 
 that he charged said Farrell no cost of distraining, 
 but paid it himself, amount Is.; and said deponent 
 (Henry Rainsford) further saithy that he distrained 
 no poultry (he appears to be unde? misapprehension 
 on that point); for said tithe, nor any person for him 
 to his knowledge, nor did he hear of any poultry be¬ 
 ing sold for said tithe, until he learned from said Ce¬ 
 cilia Farrell that she sold some in the market of Car- 
 low, which is a usual thing with landholders to make¬ 
 up sums of money to discharge their different debts ; 
 and said deponent (Henry Rainsford) further saith, 
 that at the time tithes were valued, previous to the 
 composition in 1825, from the year 1819, that to- 
 that period he never charged said Cecilia Farrell 
 tithes ; and further saith, that his directions from the 
 Rev. Thomas M. Vigors to the different parishioners 
 in Old Leighlin, were to treat them with every kind 
 of indulgence, and give them their tithes at a low 
 
APPENDIX* vii 
 
 rate, and for the value. Sworn before me, this 15th 
 March, 1832.” 
 
 Have you ascertained what the value of the pota¬ 
 toes were ?—1 have not; but estimating very mode¬ 
 rately a crop of potatoes on three quarters of ground 
 at 30 barrels, which I believe is far under the rate, 
 and considering them as worth 6s. per barrel, they 
 would be worth 9L; the tithe of that would be 18s.; 
 so that in 11 years she has paid as tithe a twentieth 
 of one year. 
 
 Did you view the ground yourself?—No ; I take 
 it upon her own report that she held three roods of 
 land, and it is upon that I found the observation I 
 have made; taking her report of it as correct ; she 
 may have held more for anything I know. 
 
 Do you know whether the entire was under 
 potatoes ?—No; but from the affidavit that potatoes 
 in pits were distrained, I suppose the quantity was 
 not small ; the crop was divided into different pits ; 
 that is the ground on which I make the inference ; I 
 do not mean to rest upon that, it is a matter for every 
 one to make his own inference on. 
 
 Did you give any particular directions with 
 regard to this person being distrained for those 
 tithes ?—My recollection is, that I was consulted on 
 that ; I had given directions that she should pay, un¬ 
 der the idea that the agent would use the same dis¬ 
 cretion which he has stated he was fully authorized 
 to do; that if he found she was a person entitled to 
 indulgence, he had full authority to refrain. 
 
 Do you mean to say that you left it to the 
 discretion of the proctor?—I do not speak to that 
 particular instance, but I did generally. 
 
 She owed an arrear of five years ?—Yes; and 
 he had never charged her with tithe when it would 
 have come heavy upon the land. 
 
Vlll 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 What was the yearly amount she was liable to !—- 
 About Is. lOd. 
 
 The next charge is <£ Garrett Roach; lives near 
 Milebush, parish of Old Leighlin: worked in the 
 parson’s employment at lOd. per day, in payment 
 of an arrear of tithe ; had to walk upwards of three 
 miles every morning from his own cottage to the par¬ 
 son’s house ; worked all day without food ; returned 
 late at night; on his return had seldom any other 
 food than potatoes and water; cuffed by the parson 
 for negligence in the employment; and at length dis¬ 
 missed unable to labour.” It is stated that he worked 
 for you all day without food ; had he any opportunity 
 by your indulgence of procuring that ?—He had the 
 general permission given to the parishioners of Old 
 Leighlin, who had been in the habit for a series of 
 years during my father’s lifetime, much more than my 
 own, upwards of thirty years ago, to come down in 
 great numbers from the parish, on the borders of 
 which our residence is; and many of the poor far¬ 
 mers paid their tithe by work instead of cash, as a 
 matter of great accommodation to them; they sought 
 it as such ; and it was frequently asked, “ when will 
 you have work for us, Sir?” With regard to the ac¬ 
 commodation afforded, they brought their food, their 
 bread and their butter, their milk or their potatoes, 
 which I permitted to be prepared at my gate-house 
 for them : he worked to discharge an arrear of tithe, 
 and he was continued, at his own desire, longer than 
 other persons; I recollect his being put to some 
 draining and other work after harvest was over. 
 
 Do you mean, after he had discharged his ar¬ 
 rear of tithe ?—No; I do not say that, but when 
 I had not work for all the men who had been em¬ 
 ployed during harvest: he was continued longer than 
 they were, and I kept him as long as I had occasion 
 to retain him, then he was dismissed. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 IX 
 
 It is stated that he was cuffed and dismissed 
 as unable to labour; was that the fact ?—As to the 
 cuffing, the conviction upon my mind is, that I never 
 struck any man in my life from the time I was a 
 schoolboy. 
 
 How much a day did he earn?—He had lOd. 
 a day, which was the ordinary wages of the coun¬ 
 try. As to the distance he states himself to have 
 come, it was voluntary on the man’s part; it was 
 sought by him. 
 
 The next is “ Michael Neil, of Ballynagole, 
 sued for tithe, March 17, 1830; his only cow dis¬ 
 trained ; also his bed, bed-covering, two boxes, a 
 chest and dresser, cupboard, about ten chairs, two 
 tables and several pots; the door-case torn out in or¬ 
 der to make a passage for the dresser. Neil is a very 
 poor man, having a wife and six children.” Have 
 you any statement from Mr. Rainsford respecting 
 that transaction ?—I have. 
 
 Your only knowledge of that probably is from 
 his explanation ?—My only knowledge of the par¬ 
 ticulars of the sale; but with regard to the gene¬ 
 ral character and situation of the man, I had a per¬ 
 sonal knowledge of them, and on those grounds, be¬ 
 fore these particulars were mentioned to me, and 
 before l had obtained Rainsford’s affidavit, I made one 
 myself, not knowing that I would have been called 
 before this committee; but I have Mr. Rainsford’s 
 also, which I will beg to read. He says “ he sent 
 Patrick Brune, of Leighlin Bridge, driver for the 
 Rev. Thomas M. Vigors, to distrain Michael Neil, of 
 Ballynagole, in said county, for five years’ tithe rent, 
 at 21. 6s. Id. on each year, as he was under seizure by 
 the landlord, as he believes, for a large amount of rent, 
 and was watched by different people on civil bill de¬ 
 crees for debts to a large amount; and that said 
 Brune distrained two bed-steads, some household fur- 
 
 f 5 
 
X 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 niture and a bed-tick for said debt, but distrained no 
 cow; but was on the look-out to distrain a cow and 
 horse, which said Neil had secreted, he believes, at 
 Thomas Nowland’s, of Shamrahill. He further saith, 
 that he never heard of the door-case of Neil’s house 
 to be broken in removing- a dresser, nor does he 
 think it was the case that it was broken. He further 
 saith, that to the best of his opinion the said Neil 
 held nearly 20 acres of land; and he further saith, 
 that the reason of said Michael Neil being reduced in 
 circumstances was by his own indolence and extrava¬ 
 gance ; and he further saith, that the Rev. Thomas 
 M. Vigors treated said Neil with every kind of in¬ 
 dulgence, as maybe calculated by his large arrear of 
 tithe under the composition; and he further saith, 
 that the amount of said auction was 21. 17s. 6d. ; 
 and further saith, that there were no bed-clothes 
 canted, as was alleged ; and he further saith, that 
 previous to the composition said Neil owed Rev. 
 Thomas M. Vigors, of valued tithes, the sum of 
 21. 3s. 3d. Sworn before me, this 15th March, 1832.” 
 So that the fact is, 1 have received for six years little 
 more than the amount of one year’s tithe; and that 
 when Neil was selling his interest in his farm, for the 
 purpose of removing his family and himself to Ame¬ 
 rica, disposing, as I was told, of everything he could, 
 and every person to whom he was indebted coming 
 upon him by civil-bill decrees, and his landlord for 
 arrears of rent, and it was suggested to me that I 
 should endeavour to get something; under those 
 circumstances recourse was had to his furniture, the 
 man having secreted his cow and horse. 
 
 You took no proceedings till his other creditors 
 had taken proceedings ?—Certainly not; it was un¬ 
 der a representation to me that every thing he had 
 was being disposed of, and would be taken posses- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Xi 
 
 Sion of by others, and that he was about to sell his 
 interest in his farm to go to America. 
 
 How much did he owe you?—11/. 17s. 7d., 
 and I got 21. 17s. 6d. I find, on looking to his name, 
 that to 1831, the amount of tithe was 16/. 8s. 3d., 
 and that the balance owed to Nov. 1829, was 
 91. Os. Id., which I have lost. 
 
 You had suffered him to remain six years your 
 debtor ?—I had. 
 
 Is this return of the amount due sworn to ?—- 
 My book is not subscribed by my agent as sworn 
 to ; but he did some time last summer make a return 
 upon oath of the gross amount of tithes due by the 
 parish, taken from this book, and which, as far as I 
 have been able to ascertain, is in conformity with the 
 gross amount he has stated. 
 
 You have not compared it ?—Not throughout; 
 it was in an affidavit which I have not now with 
 me ; it was given into the hands of another per¬ 
 son, but it went to state the gross amount due, and 
 it also stated the number of persons that were in 
 debt in the parish for those six years, exceeding I 
 think 110 persons, owing four, five and six years ; 
 upwards of 200 owing three years, and with few 
 exceptions, all owing the years 1830 and 1831. 
 
 Have you seen the affidavit of your agent, veri¬ 
 fying the fact that this man owed five guineas and 
 the arrear at the time of the distraint ?—I have; he 
 made some allowance even from what appeared to be 
 the gross sum, to guard against any error which 
 might occur in making up the account. 
 
 The next charge is that of “ Mary M‘Donald, 
 of Old Leighlin.”—That is an error. This is the 
 case of a man of the name of Andrew M‘Donald, 
 and the transaction is marked by circumstances stated 
 in such a way, that they can refer only to that indi- 
 
Xll 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 vidual; I think this will come better with other cir¬ 
 cumstances. 
 
 The next is No. 8, of the charges: “ John 
 M'Nully lives on the hill of Old Leighlin, a very 
 poor old man ; about eight years ago was sued at one 
 time for the tithe of eight years; amount 2 1 .; paid 
 \l. in cash; paid off the balance in work; offered to 
 make his affidavit of having given the work; scouted 
 by the parson; compelled to pay the amount a se- 
 cond time in cash ; obliged, in order to make up the 
 money, to sell two sheep, all the stock he had.” Is 
 there any truth in that statement?'—Not as far as I 
 know with regard to John M‘Nully, certainly; I 
 have no recollection of the transaction to which he 
 refers; but I am satisfied that no man tendering an 
 affidavit would have been scouted by me. When per¬ 
 sons are employed as labourers to discharge their 
 tithe, they have only to obtain a return of their work 
 from the person superintending their labour, and 
 that ticket handed in to Mr. Rainsford would be a 
 complete discharge for so much. 
 
 If any man had paid you the amount of your 
 tithe in work, would you have refused him credit for 
 it?—I am confident, that if a doubt existed in my 
 mind respecting it, I would have submitted to pay it 
 myself sooner than have permitted the individual to 
 suffer injustice. 
 
 Have you the slightest recollection of having re¬ 
 fused this man credit for any work he had done ?—I 
 have not the slightest recollection of it. 
 
 Do you believe there is the slightest ground for 
 this charge ?—I do not, and when I say that, I refer 
 to the account and affidavit of my agent; in that he 
 states “ That John M‘Nully, of Old Leighlin Hill, 
 in said county, passed his promissory note for the 
 sum of 1/. sterling, as an arrear of tithe due to the 
 Rev. Thomas M. Vigors (in the year 1826 or 1827)” 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 XIII 
 
 that is, that he passed a note about that period, as 
 the conclusion of the affidavit will clearly show: 
 “ and that he had freely and voluntarily done so, as 
 he was quite sure he owed the debt, and that he paid 
 said sum in the year 1828 in money, and not by 
 sheep, as he alleges; and H. Rainsford further saith, 
 that all work done by said John M‘Nully for Rev. 
 Thomas M. Vigors, to the best of his knowledge, 
 was allowed said John M‘Nully by said H. Rainsford, 
 or Rev. Thomas M. Vigors; and H. Rainsford fur¬ 
 ther saith, that said John M‘Nully owes said Rev. 
 Thomas M. Vigors, up to the 1st Nov. 1831, six 
 years tithe under the composition, at 3s. 8Jd. yearly, 
 amounting to the sum of 1/. 2s. 3^d. Sworn before 
 me, this 15th March, 1832.” 
 
 He owes you six years at present ?—So it appears 
 from this affidavit, and from the tithe accounts. 
 
 That affidavit states, that he voluntarily gave a 
 security in 1827 or 1828 for one pound; must not 
 that of necessity have included the tithe of the pre¬ 
 vious years?—As he owes for six years up to 1831, 
 of course he owed the year 1825 as part of the tithe 
 composition rent, and the 21. must have been accru¬ 
 ing for several years antecedent to 1825. 
 
 How much a year was his tithe?—I cannot tell 
 what it was before the composition, but under it the 
 amount was 3s. 8id. per annum. 
 
 Can you say that the tithe was such, that the note 
 he passed must have included some years previous ? 
 —It must have been for some years previous to 1825 ; 
 for it is sworn, and it appears upon the book, that 
 he owes six years, including 1825, of course the ar- 
 rear was some years antecedent to that. 
 
 Consequently the statement, that he had paid his 
 tithe, and twice paid it in the eight years before, must 
 have been an unfounded statement ?—So it would ap¬ 
 pear from the account of Mr. Rainsford. 
 
xiv 
 
 APPENDIX* 
 
 Do you keep an account of the labourers’ work ?— 
 I did not at that time ; I have a man who superintends 
 the labourers. I have not had a regular steward for 
 some years ; he gave a return of the labourers’ work 
 to every man as he called for the ticket, and that be¬ 
 ing produced with my signature to it, obtains from 
 Rainsford credit in the account. 
 
 Was that given to the party every week ?—I cannot 
 say that it was ; it was given probably at the period 
 at which the person ceased to work, whether a week, 
 or ten days, or a longer period. 
 
 Is the person who keeps the account of the labour 
 a tithe proctor or agent ?—No ; but the accounts are 
 returned to him. 
 
 The proctor may have distrained without knowing 
 the state of the labour account?—I am satisfied that 
 if a man said that he had not got a return for his 
 work, that proceedings would be at once suspended. 
 
 Have you ever heard a complaint of such conduct 
 towards the labourers, that they were compelled to 
 pay for matters for which they had been allowed in 
 their work ?—There have been at times difficulties 
 as to the amount of labour done ; but I do not know 
 that any man has ever stated that he did not get that 
 to which he was entitled; my conviction is, that I 
 never hesitated to allow to any poor man that he was 
 entitled to. 
 
 In what manner have the difficulties arisen?— 
 From their claiming, perhaps, more than it was con¬ 
 ceived they had done. I have no positive instance 
 upon my mind of any person having said that he had 
 not had a return for his work; but I only state that 
 as a circumstance which may have occurred. 
 
 With respect to charge No. 7, do you know a per¬ 
 son of the name of Mary M‘Donald, who is stated, 
 “ in the year 1830, to have owed a tithe charge of 
 21 .; that she offered IL, all the money she had at the 
 
APPENDIX* 
 
 XV 
 
 time; refused; her cow distrained, kept in pound 
 four days under heavy snow. A crowd collected to break 
 openthe pound; cow liberated upon bail; hurlingssoon 
 after in the neighbourhood; no warrants of distress 
 executed since ?”—This case refers to transac¬ 
 tions attended and followed by extraordinary and re¬ 
 markable results. About the 20th of December, 1830, 
 Andrew McDonald delivered to me a note, which I 
 handed to a friend for the purpose of having it sub¬ 
 mitted to the tithe committee (but I am not now in 
 possession of it); it was in, or nearly, these words: 
 “ Reverend Sir, the case of McDonald is one of such 
 extreme severity, that I request you will take it un¬ 
 der your own personal consideration, and afford him 
 such relief as his misery demands (or words to that 
 effect) ; by which you will oblige your obedient ser¬ 
 vant, P. Kehoe.” 
 
 Who is P. Kehoe ?—He is the parish priest of 
 OldLeighlin. I immediately asked McDonald, “ What 
 does this mean ?” “ Sir, Mr. Rainsford has my cow 
 
 in the pound.” I believe he said since Friday even¬ 
 ing, this being on Monday morning, “ How much 
 do you owe ? “I owe five years’ tithe,” was his 
 reply, “ but I will pay you 1/. of it this day ; my wife 
 is gone into Carlow with butter; and I hope the re¬ 
 mainder I shall pay very shortly.” I said, “ I am 
 quite satisfied; or if you are disposed to work when 
 the season comes round” (though this was in Decem¬ 
 ber), “ you may pay the balance off as you used to 
 do.” “ Oh, long life to you, Sir; you are always 
 kind to me : but what am I to do for my cow ?” “I 
 will write to have her delivered to you; and will go 
 into town to inquire into the circumstances, previous 
 to my answering Mr. Kehoe’s note.” 
 
 Did you write the note ?—I did, to the pound- 
 keeper (and delivered it to M‘Donald himself), to 
 release his cow; he went away, thanking me. I 
 
XVI 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 found, on applying to Mr. Rainsford, my agent, that 
 a similar offer had been made, on the cow being dis¬ 
 trained, to pay the amount that day, with this difference, 
 that for the remainder, which was something more 
 than another pound, he would pass a joint promissory 
 note with his brother to secure the payment of that, 
 and my agent at once assented to the proposal, as I 
 ascertained, but that McDonald never went near him 
 afterwards, either to pay the amount or to pass the 
 note, nor did M‘Donald state to me what had passed 
 between him and my agent; he suppressed that alto¬ 
 gether. 
 
 Did he get out the cow ?—He did immediately ; 
 but I never heard that bail was passed, nor of a 
 “ crowd having assembled to break open the pound.” 
 On my going to Leighlin Bridge to ascertain such 
 act of severity had been used, which called for swh 
 a letter from Mr. Kehoe, I found that Mr. Rains¬ 
 ford had assented to the proposition made by 
 M‘Donald, and having ascertained this, I then wrote 
 to Mr. Kehoe to state, that so far from his having 
 just ground to prefer a charge for severity, he would 
 find that the circumstances, if he inquired into them, 
 would call for an acknowledgment of indulgence on 
 my part, and moderation on the part of my agent 
 towards M‘Donald. I learned, I believe the same 
 day, in the town of Leighlin Bridge, that this trans¬ 
 action had been made the subject of some marked 
 observations in chapel on the Sunday preceding, and 
 on the next day there was a notice or notices posted 
 up, requiring the inhabitants of the surrounding 
 parishes to meet at Old Leighlin; that no one would 
 fail at his peril, for the purpose of putting down 
 tithes, or to that effect. The notice named the en¬ 
 suing Friday, the 24th, as the day on which this con¬ 
 course was required to meet: they collected at Old 
 Leighlin in great numbers, as I was informed; they 
 
APPENDIX. XVII 
 
 proceeded from that to Leighlin Bridge, and thence 
 to my residence, within half a mile of that town. 
 When collected on my lawn, the multitude was ad¬ 
 dressed at considerable length by a person who was 
 called by name, and which he avowed, not an in¬ 
 habitant of, nor a landholder in the parish of Old 
 Leighlin. 
 
 Was his address calculated to excite the people to 
 resistance to the payment of tithes?—Unquestion¬ 
 ably, that was the whole tenor of his address; to 
 place the tithes in an odious and obnoxious point of 
 view, as unreasonable and unjust, or unwarrantable 
 in the sight of God or man, to pay tithes to a Church 
 to which the people do not belong. 
 
 Has there been resistance to tithe in the parish of 
 Old Leighlin since that ?—There has, the opposition 
 has been general; there were some few payments 
 made shortly after, until the influence and effect of 
 intimidation was such that even those disposed to 
 pay came in secretly for a time, and latterly they 
 have been altogether afraid of doing so. 
 
 Was this the first approach to opposition in your 
 parish ?—It was ; I ascertained it by the distraint of 
 McDonald’s cow ; I did it for the special purpose, 
 arising from a circumstance which I have not men¬ 
 tioned. A few days previous to that three persons 
 of the parish came to me, saying, they had been 
 called upon to pay their tithe composition rent, but 
 they were not prepared to do so. On my asking 
 them how much was due, they said, “ Two years 
 I replied, “ Surely, you ought to pay me by this 
 time.” “ No, the rent and taxes are so high we 
 cannot pay you.” I said, “ I have nothing to do 
 with that; that is no reason for your not paying your 
 tithe.” No one said a word about the tithe being 
 overrated, nor do I recollect any general statement of 
 the tithe being overrated; on the contrary, I believe 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 .. *• * 
 
 Xvill 
 
 that if the parish was valued it would be worth nearly 
 800/., or 900/., or 1,000/., instead of 500/., Irish, at 
 whieh it was settled. 
 
 Did you make any representation to the magis¬ 
 trates of the conduct of this person who addressed 
 the mob ?—First, I would beg’ leave to observe, that 
 he came to my house on the same day with the Rev. 
 Mr. Kehoe, who made a proposition to cancel the 
 tithe composition: this was on the 24th December. 
 On the 26th, a magistrate in the neighbourhood ap¬ 
 prised me that a meeting was convened by the high 
 sheriff to be held on the following day, and that I 
 was expected to attend. I was there called upon to 
 make a statement of the transaction to the magis¬ 
 trates ; that was transmitted to the Castle of Dublin ; 
 and after a few days I was called upon to verify on 
 oath that part of the statement which referred to the 
 individual to whom I have alluded. From that time 
 I was informed that I became a marked object of hos¬ 
 tility to the people ; and I then heard there was a 
 requisition posted up in the parish of Old Leighlin, 
 to have a statement of grievances got up, for the 
 purpose of preferring charges against me, I suppose 
 to make it the pretext on which to rest the opposi¬ 
 tion ; though subsequent to those proceedings, I un¬ 
 derstand that the individual I have already mentioned 
 accompanied Cecilia Farrell to a magistrate, and ten¬ 
 dered an affidavit. The magistrate, who was her 
 landlord, stated to me that he refused to receive it. 
 
 While the crowd were assembled on your grounds, 
 this gentleman came to your house, accompanied by 
 the Rev. Mr. Kehoe, who required you to cancel the 
 composition?—He did. With reference to my state¬ 
 ment as to the three persons who had been with me 
 some days before, on my saying that the rate of 
 their taxes was no reason for their not paying me, 
 they said, that the Rev. Mr. Mahar had desired them 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Xl% 
 
 to call on me to reduce their tithes ; and I considered 
 there was an hostility raised against me in conse¬ 
 quence of the statement which I was required to 
 make respecting those persons, and that that was the 
 foundation of these charges being got up. 
 
 The parish of Powerstown is not Under composi¬ 
 tion ?—It is not. 
 
 The first case stated in the parish of Powerstown 
 is that of Edmund Carney, Townehar: “ Edmund 
 Carney, Townehar, sWorn before a magistrate, that 
 he paid his tithe all to 2d., and not having paid the 
 2d. was processed for it; and not having then paid, 
 it was processed a second time for Is. 2d., being cost 
 of the first process with the 2d.,; the amount of his 
 tithe was 6s. ?”—I disclaim all knowledge whatsoever 
 of this transaction in whole or in part, or anything 
 connected with it. 
 
 Did you apply to your agent upon the subject of 
 that charge ?—I did ; I wrote, giving him exact co¬ 
 pies of the charges as they were stated to me ; and 
 desired that such answers should be given as he could 
 supply, on oath. The curate of my parish, and an¬ 
 other friend, wrote to me, that my agent had peremp¬ 
 torily refused to make any affidavit upon the subject, 
 but he gave a written statement, the statement which 
 I hold; it is in the hand-writing of my agent. 
 
 Did he give any reason for not making the affida¬ 
 vit ?—He has to mvself since, that “ neither his life 
 or property would be secure if he furnished any affida¬ 
 vit upon the subject; that that was not only his own 
 conviction, but that he was so advised (by a most re¬ 
 spectable Homan Catholic parishioner}, that his ad¬ 
 vice was to keep himself quiet ; that the persons 
 who w’ould swear to that effect, would not stop at 
 any thing.” 
 
 In the written statement he made with respect to 
 this first case, did he deny the charge ?—Positively 
 
XX 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 and peremptorily he denied his having filed or autho¬ 
 rised a process to be filed for any such sum as 6d., 
 or Is., or 2s. 6d. I believe that the process-server, 
 if he is examined, can say the same, James Keefe, 
 Gorman. 
 
 Have you any means of knowing whether your 
 agent is a fair and moderate man ?—I have every rea¬ 
 son to be fully satisfied that he is ; he held the tithes 
 from me for the year 1825, and managed them on his 
 own account, and he has been continued by me in 
 consequence of the desire of the parishioners, being 
 a man very much liked by them. 
 
 Have you ever had any complaint made of oppres¬ 
 sion or hardship on his part ?—I cannot bring to my 
 mind that I have heard any. 
 
 When did he commence ?—He commenced in the 
 year 1825 ; Mahar had acted, I believe, twenty years 
 before. He was a man whom I found as tithe proc¬ 
 tor of the parish of Powerstown, on my being pre¬ 
 sented to it in the year 1817 ; he was most earnestly 
 recommended to me by the late Sir Edward Loftus, 
 as a person of tried integrity, who would do me jus¬ 
 tice, and be well received by the parishioners. 
 
 The next charge refers to “ William Brofy, of Pol- 
 lough. Can swear that he served Rev. Mr. Vigors 
 with notice to lay out his tithe; that Mr. Vigors at¬ 
 tended on the day in his field; that Sir Nicholas 
 Loftus interfered to settle between Mr. Vigors and 
 Brofy,; the parties agreed to his settlement; he, 
 Brofy, declares, that as soon as Sir Nicholas rode off, 
 the Rev. Mr. Vigors broke the agreement, finding it 
 his advantage, and had Brofy’s corn carried off to his 
 (Mr. Vigor’s) barn.” Was there ever any agree¬ 
 ment made as to this man’s corn?—No; I deny that 
 positively ; an agreement was not made with regard 
 to the wheat, it was being delivered at the time I met 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 XXI 
 
 him and Sir Nicholas Loftus, not in the field but on 
 the road. 
 
 Did he set out his tithe ?—Yes, he gave me notice 
 to receive the tithe of his wheat, without having in¬ 
 quired the rent of his tithe. 
 
 “ Brofy further declares, that he holds but four 
 acres of land, on which he keeps a horse and cow, 
 and that he was charged for tithes for his little tillage, 
 21. 5s. 6d., and that as once he could not be punc¬ 
 tual in his payment, two drivers were sent to drive 
 his cow, and did drive, for which each driver 
 charged 2s. 6d., and his wife wanting Id. of the 
 2s, 6d., the driver obliged her to send him one quart 
 of new milk to pay up the balance.” What was the 
 charge against this man for his tithe ?—For the last 
 seven years it appears to be about half the sum stated 
 there. In the year 1818 and 1819, which are both 
 put together, I do not know the amount of each year ; 
 in 1820, there appears to have been \l. 18s., and he 
 not only discharged that by work as a mason, but 
 received from me, what appears to be the balance of 
 2 l. 12s. I have the account furnished in his own 
 hand-writing at the end of that period, that is 1820: 
 his tithes had fallen rapidly, so that his tithes had 
 been 18s., and 16s., and some 20s., and that appears 
 to be the average rate of his tithe. 
 
 The highest from the time he paid off in full 
 would be about half?—Yes; and so my agent states. 
 He adds, “ For those seven years, his tithe was 
 about half of 21. 5s. 6d. ; I do not recollect that I 
 have had a decree against Brofy, and never sent a 
 driver to him.” 
 
 Does he owe you much tithe at present ?—It ap¬ 
 pears, from referring to the book, there was an ar- 
 rear of two years besides; I believe the two latter 
 years, but the book is only to 1829. 
 
 Do those books contain an account of all sums 
 
XXII 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 paid?—They are rather a recapitulation of the ac¬ 
 count, showing* the total amount of tithes due, and 
 the balance struck up to the year 1829; I have a se¬ 
 parate book of 1830, but I have not brought that 
 into account, for I have very little for that year, and 
 less for 1831. 
 
 Do you know what Brofy’s payment may have 
 been among those few of which you have not brought 
 the account?—I have the account in town; my firm 
 belief is, that Brofy has not paid anything for 1830, 
 but I will ascertain that precisely; there were very 
 few payments made for that year. 
 
 The next case is that of Thomas McCormick. He 
 states, that he “ can swear that he paid Birdshal, Vi¬ 
 gors’ proctor, the tithe of one field in kind, and that 
 he paid the rest of his tithe in money : that notwith¬ 
 standing, Birdshal, on the part of Vigors, summoned 
 him different times to the petit sessions to pay the 
 tithe of the aforesaid field over again, and being de¬ 
 feated there, Birdshal served him with a citation to 
 appear in Carlow. Cormick, finding the cost accu¬ 
 mulating, and the court about being held in Hell, 
 came to a compromise, and passed his note for 25s., 
 which note, however unjust, he should have paid, 
 were it not for the timely interference of the hinders. 
 Cormick also declares, that his father-in-law, Mi¬ 
 chael Haydon, now deceased, paid Vigors’ proctor, 
 Mahar, 3/. for his tithes. He having gone to New¬ 
 foundland, Mahar processed Haydon for the 31,, and 
 compelled him to pay it over again with costs ?”— 
 Mahar had ceased to act for me since the year 1824; 
 but I will say, that I have never heard of the tran¬ 
 saction myself to my knowledge ; I rather believe, if 
 the man had stated in court that he had cast my proc¬ 
 tor in an action as alleged, the suit would not have 
 been entertained. 
 
 Mahar, who is alluded to, is dead ?^-Yes, he died 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 XX111 
 
 about 1826, but had not been able to transact busi¬ 
 ness since 1824. 
 
 Was any complaint to this effect ever made against 
 Mahar to you upon this subject?—I cannot call to my 
 recollection that I have had any complaint against 
 Mahar’s conduct except in one instance, which I have 
 stated, respecting a claim on behalf of my prede¬ 
 cessor. 
 
 Does Birdshal deny having summoned him ?—I 
 do not know whether Birdshal was made acquainted 
 with this charge; it was not among those transmitted 
 to me. 
 
 Have you any reason to believe there is the least 
 foundation for it ?—It would be contrary both to the 
 instructions under which he acts and to the character 
 of the man. 
 
 The next is “ Widow Carney, of Townehan; 
 having settled for her tithes, being 35s., her son paid 
 the proctor, Birdshal, 34s. 6d. ; Birdshal, at the pro¬ 
 cess time, processed the widow for 6d., and obliged 
 her to pay 6d. with Is. costs; this has been sworn ? 
 —Birdshal states, in reference to widow Carney, 
 “ that having summoned her to the petty sessions, he 
 informed me then that she was a poor widow, and I 
 made her a present of whatever was due at the time ; 
 and that she never paid any such thing as 34s., or 
 any such sum to his knowledge.” I think 1 saw that 
 statement on one of the books in passing over the 
 accounts, and that the sum remitted to her was 19s. 
 
 What does she owe you now ?—That appears upon 
 the book: for her tithes of 1823 and 1829 there is 
 1/. 8s. 6d. remaining due to me, besides the two years 
 which have since accrued. 
 
 In a year’s time her tithe appears to have amounted 
 to 34s. 6d. ?—No ; 11. 8s. 6d. is the highest sum that 
 appears charged against her with which I am fur¬ 
 nished ; this account is given on oath ; I received this 
 
XXIV" 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 book in Dublin only on Saturday morning-; and in¬ 
 dependently of the accounts, when I looked over 
 them, having- been furnished on oath, Birdshal lies 
 made this declaration : “ The foregoing- is a just and 
 true account of the balance due by the several pa¬ 
 rishioners of Powerstown for their respective tithes, 
 due to the Rev. Thomas Vigors, to and for the year 
 ending August 1829; and the several sums therein 
 set forth due and owing by the several persons in the 
 said account set forth, over and above all fair allow¬ 
 ances and payments whatever. Dated this 31st day 
 of March, 1832, Richard Birdshal.” I would here 
 observe, that the gross amount of arrears remaining 
 due upon the four years, is 588?. 19s. lid., upon a 
 tithe averaging less than 500?. a year. 
 
 Up to what time is that ?—Upon the years 1826, 
 1827, 1828, and 1829; that account is furnished 
 upon oath, and I consider that it affords the most con¬ 
 vincing proof of the moderation with which the 
 tithes of this parish have been conducted. 
 
 Was that the amount of the agreement with the 
 parishioners ?—This is the stated account settled with 
 the parishioners, as far as there were agreements ; 
 in any instances in which they have not settled, there 
 were such amounts affixed to their names as the 
 agent was prepared to establish. 
 
 The next case referred to, is “ Thomas Healy, of 
 Townehan; has sworn that he holds but 14 acres of 
 poor land; that his tithes were valued at 4?. 10s., 
 which he punctually paid ; but once having been 6d. 
 short, was processed for the same, which he paid with 
 Is. costs.”?—All that appears here is, that Thomas 
 Healy’s tithes in 1826, were 2?.; in 1827, 1?. 17s. 6d.; 
 in 1828, 3?.; in 1829, 4?. 9s. 6d.; there is aba- 
 lance of Is. 6d. entered, due. 
 
 Have you had any communication with Mr. Bird¬ 
 shal upon the subject of this charge ?—Yes ; he says 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 XXV 
 
 with regard to Healy, “ Andrew Healy, brother to 
 Thomas, took this tithe from me, and stated the rea¬ 
 son, saying, that his brother Thomas was not fit in 
 mind or memory to do any business at the time; and 
 I deny that I ever processed him for 6d., or anything 
 so low as 2s. 6d., which the above (Keep) may recol¬ 
 lect, if his books are not able to show.” Keep is 
 the process-server. I desired to have a statement 
 from him of the amount he had served processes for. 
 I was so hurried in coming over to England, it was 
 not in my power to apply for or procure them; he 
 refers to the process-server to confirm his statement. 
 
 The next ease is, “ Edward Murray, of Borough. 
 Can swear that he held but two acres of most barren 
 ground, and that he was unable to till more than one 
 acre; that for that acre he was charged 16s., and a 
 warrant of distress granted at the petit sessions, 
 though the tithe was not worth 5s. He also can 
 swear, that in consequence of this overcharge and 
 costs, he was obliged to give up to the landlord all 
 but a little kitchen garden ; and three years after they 
 trumped up against him 15s., for which they cited 
 him to Carlow, and not being able to fee an attorney, 
 he was obliged to pay them their demand. He also 
 states, that he had not nor could not procure more 
 than a few pence to defray his expenses for the two 
 days he spent in Carlow, though he had thirty miles 
 to travel. His land was not worth 10s. per acre rent.” ? 
 -—I do not find any such name as Edward Murray in 
 the tithe-book, nor is there any such townland as 
 Borough in the parish of Powerstown. I apprehend 
 it is a clerical error, and that the name should be Edr 
 ward Morrassy, and the townland Curraugh Lane. 
 
 Supposing it to be Edward Morrassy, would the 
 charge with respect to him be true?—I have no know¬ 
 ledge of the quantity of ground held by him, or the 
 circumstances detailed. On referring to Mr. Mahar’s 
 
 o 
 
XXVI 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 book for the years from 1818 to 1824 inclusive, I find 
 that with the exception of the year 1818, the charge 
 for which is 16s., the charges are 11s. 4^d. There 
 was a balance of 19s. remaining due in the year 
 1824. Y ■; - : 
 
 The next person is “ William Gahen, of Powers- 
 town. He can swear that he holds one acre of land, 
 for which he was charged 14s. tithe. Gahen having 
 refused to pay a tithe so exorbitant, was cited to 
 Carlow; knowing the court he was cited to, he came 
 to a settlement with Birdshal, and was obliged to 
 pay 19s. tithe and costs, and three days at hard la¬ 
 bour. He, Gahen, can also swear that he sold the 
 produce of half the acre for 24s.” ?—I am altogether 
 unacquainted with the circumstances that are de¬ 
 tailed. 
 
 Was this one of the cases of which you were in¬ 
 formed before you came here ?—No; I think not. 
 
 Had you any opportunity of conferring with your 
 agent upon the subject ?—No. 
 
 These charges principally respect your agent ?— 
 Yes, the charges refer principally to the conduct of 
 my agent; I have given answers as to those which 
 refer to myself. 
 
 State the charges against him, the highest and the 
 lowest ?—5s. 5d, is the lowest, and 10s. is the-high* 
 est, and that only one year; the others were 8s. and 
 9s. 
 
 In no instance you find 14s. as charged ?—No. 
 
 Consequently that statement is utterly unfounded ? 
 —Of course, as far as my books go back, to the com¬ 
 mencement of my incumbency, it appears that he 
 owed a balance of K. 7s. 4d. up to 1824. 
 
 What does he appear now to owe ?—I find him 
 returned to me at the close of this book insolvent; I 
 conceive that is in respect of the U. 7s. 4d. 
 
 It would have been a very idle thing for you to have 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 XXVII 
 
 cited him to any court, being returned there insol¬ 
 vent ?—That is quite conclusive against keeping up 
 any further pursuit of my right. 
 
 The next is “ the widow Breman, of Borrismore. 
 Can swear, that when her husband died, and left her 
 eight children, she owed the Rev. Mr. Vigors about 
 9/. tithe. She held six acres, which were generally 
 tithed at SI. per year, for which she passed her note; 
 she was soon after processed and decreed for same ; 
 her harvest being reaped and stacked, his proctors 
 seized on the produce of better than an acre of good 
 wheat (which was considered by her neighbours to 
 make nine barrels), and sold it and were themselves 
 the purchasers ; it was carried to Mr. Vigors’ barn, and 
 sold by him at 21. per barrel. The widow having no 
 seed to sow about half an acre, went with tears in 
 her eyes to beg that he (Vigots) would give her as 
 much as would sow it; and also begged he would 
 give her the straw for manure, but all in vain : his 
 reply was, he wanted to buy bread for his children ; 
 her children might starve if they would.” It is stated 
 that she owed you 9/.; have the goodness to turn to your 
 book and state the amount. Did she ever owe 9/. ?-— 
 I have the charge here from 1817 to 1824 inclusive. 
 In the book from that period, she is charged only one 
 year, which I recollect is only \l. 7s. ; in the ante¬ 
 cedent period under Mahar’s management of the pa¬ 
 rish, H. 14s. l^d. is the highest charge in any one 
 year. 
 
 Then that statement is unfounded?—Yes; not 
 only from that, but from the fact that the greater 
 part of her tithes were paid by labouring work, by 
 her sons, who were active, healthy young men, who 
 were employed by me frequently, and got payment 
 to a very large amount for their work; so that she 
 had sometimes 1/. 15s., frequently 10s. and 15s., 
 and sums of that kind to her credit; I have various 
 
XXV111 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 sums returned to me as having 1 been discharged by 
 labour. 
 
 What is the lowest charge against her ?—1Z. 2s. 9d. 
 
 May not the 9Z. have been due altogether?—It 
 was impossible, from th.6 accumulation of work and 
 returns I have, and the large sums that were earned 
 by her sons in different periods from the very time I 
 went to the parish; the woman represented herself 
 as being from my own country, Old Leighlin, and I 
 gave to her a greater proportion of work than to 
 others. 
 
 Have you the book in which the account of that 
 work was kept?—I have in town the account of 
 several payments ; I have some tickets, and I have 
 found an account of Mahar’s of the sums paid on 
 tickets sent in for work, amount 8Z. 14s. Id. 
 
 Have you a regular account ?—No, I have not. 
 
 The statement is, that when her husband died she 
 owed 91. ; at what time did her husband die ?—Be¬ 
 fore I was incumbent, as I have ascertained, prior to 
 1816, so that she could not have owed me anything 
 at that time, being prior to my incumbency. I was 
 told latterly that the woman had played upon me, 
 and that she was an artful woman, and that I must 
 he cautious of her. 
 
 You have stated that her sons had plenty of em¬ 
 ployment from you ?—I have. 
 
 What were her circumstances ?—I considered her 
 very comfortable ; those young men were very active 
 and healthy, and were always remarkably well 
 dressed. 
 
 Is there any truth in the statement, that you told 
 her that her children might starve ?—Not the slight¬ 
 est, as put forward; the sentiment never was uttered 
 by me, it was on stating that her children would 
 starve that my reply was made in the way of reproach 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 xxix 
 
 to her, she having comfortable employment and 
 means for them. 
 
 Not turning away the poor distressed woman, tell¬ 
 ing her that she and her children might starve ?— 
 Not the least. 
 
 Wherefore did she say that her children might 
 starve; was that in consequence of her corn being 
 taken ?—I suppose it was ; I have n.o distinct recol¬ 
 lection of her corn being taken, but I recollect the 
 woman coming to me. 
 
 Do you know what quantity of corn was taken ? 
 —I cannot form the most distant idea of that; I ima¬ 
 gine it to be utterly impossible that it could be any¬ 
 thing approaching to the quantity she has stated, just 
 as much as it is impossible that the tithe could have 
 amounted to the sum she states to be due ; I think 
 one is as untrue as the other. Catherine Breman 
 having been a widow previous to my incumbency, 
 the statement is altogether untrue; it being abso¬ 
 lutely impossible that she could have owed me any¬ 
 thing at the time her husband died. 
 
 You do not know when it was that this conversa-? 
 tion took place, when she talked of her children 
 starving ?— I believe some years ago ; I have nothing 
 to fix the period. 
 
 That was the period when the corn was taken, 
 probably ?—I conceive so. 
 
 The next respects Walter Ryan. “ Walter Ryan, 
 of Birckile, has sworn that his tithe was valued at 
 5s. ; that he settled with Birdshal for same, and pass¬ 
 ed his note for the payment, for which Birdshal after¬ 
 wards processed him. Ryan being processed offered 
 payment for his note; Birdshal refused to take the 
 amount;, unless Ryan paid former costs which were 
 incurred in consequence of citations, but said he 
 would not proceed with process; he however did 
 proceed in the absence of Ryan, and decreed him ; 
 
XXX 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 seized on his little corn ; kept two bailiffs to watch 
 four days, without the knowledge of Ryan; Ryan 
 not knowing what to do, settled with them, and was 
 obliged to pay 15s. instead of 5s. ?”—I disclaim all 
 knowledge whatever of those circumstances. 
 
 Have you had an opportunity of obtaining infor¬ 
 mation from Birdshal upon them ?—No ; there were 
 only five or six cases, stated to be of the most pro¬ 
 minent nature, stated to me, and that was not one. 
 The highest tithe charged against him is 11s. ; the 
 first year is 5s., the next 7s., and the next 3s., and 
 the next 11s. ; he appears to owe 1/. 2s., almost the 
 whole amount of the four years up to 1829 j of course 
 he owes the two years since that. 
 
 Was included in the account returned on oath?— 
 Yes. 
 
 If Birdshal is not a perjured man the account of 
 those two must be false ?—Yes. There appears to 
 he only 4s. paid out of the four years that Birdshal 
 has managed it for me. 
 
 Then it must be false that he paid Birdshal 15s. ? 
 —Clearly so. In December, 1830, in consequence 
 ©f the demand of the hurlers, who went from my 
 glebe house to BirdshaFs at Powerstown, he made a 
 solemn promise never to have any concerns in the 
 management of tithe affairs, and promised forthwith 
 to give up his books within two days ; he came over 
 with a parishioner, in two days afterwards, as a wit¬ 
 ness, stating that he considered it a solemn promise, 
 which he considered as binding upon him, never to 
 interfere again in tithe concerns :■ and he has now 
 given his statement so cautiously that he would not 
 affix his name to it; it was as it were extorted from 
 him. K^rhas stated himself distinctly, that his life 
 and property would not be safe ; and that was not 
 merely his own conviction, but that he had been so 
 advised. 
 
APPENDIX. , XXxi 
 
 He gave up a lucrative employment in consequence 
 of this fear?—Yes. 
 
 The next is the case of Harding-; what is stated 
 by him is this : “ That he owed a sum of money to 
 the rector, Vigors, and was decreed for the same by 
 his agent Mahar; and having no stock or property 
 but two horses, which Mahar said he would seize and 
 cant if he did not give him a field containing three 
 acres and three roods less than the head rent, which 
 was K. 10s. British; accordingly he was obliged to 
 agree, though said field was well known to be worth 
 51. per acre. He held it two years, which was the 
 length of time sufficient to clear off the debt; but 
 the two years being expired, Mahar thought to keep 
 forcible possession ; however he succeeded in bully¬ 
 ing him out of the possession; he then ploughed the 
 field, and got six guineas per acre for it; but were it 
 not for his extreme want of money he might get 8/. 
 bygiving six months’ credit. Mahar was at this 
 time on his death-bed, and when he found that Hard¬ 
 ing had taken possession of the field, he swore vehe¬ 
 mently if he were on his limbs he would make him 
 pay dearly for it.” When did Mahar die ?—He died 
 in 1826 ; he had ceased to act for me in the year 
 1824. 
 
 Had you ever heard anything of this transaction 
 before ?—Never. 
 
 No charge was made against Mahar in his life¬ 
 time ?—Never, to my knowledge; he lived within 
 100 yards of the magistrate, who was constantly re¬ 
 siding in the parish; and Harding was close by too; 
 and it appears to me very strange that such a trans¬ 
 action should occur without any application to the 
 magistrate; it is unaccountable; there is a petty 
 sessions constantly held in the neighbourhood. 
 
 You never heard of this before?—Never. 
 
 Have you any reason to believe there is the least 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 xxxii 
 
 truth in it ?—I have no ground for forming an opi¬ 
 nion, except from that circumstance, that I think it 
 is extraordinary, if it is true, that there should have 
 been no application to the magistrate. 
 
 How does Harding stand in your books?—I think 
 Harding was a man of punctuality in his transactions; 
 he appears to owe to 1824, when Mahar’s books were 
 closed, the tithe of the year 1824, 61. 8s. 3d. It is 
 an excellent farm: he says himself that part of the 
 land is worth 51. an acre. In November, 1825, he 
 appears to have paid 31. of the money; and the ba¬ 
 lance appears to remain in Mahar's book; it is under 
 the head of James Harding. Thomas Harding ap¬ 
 pears, according to Birdshal’s book, to have succeeded 
 him; he owes 51. 12s. 4Jd., which is nearly two 
 years tithe. The amount of his tithes appears to 
 have been reduced greatly from the charges in Ma¬ 
 har’s time, 5L, 41., and 21. 13s.; there is an old ar- 
 rear of 3/. in this 51. 12s. 4d. 
 
 His tithe appears to have been considerably re¬ 
 duced ?—Yes; in Mahar’s time it was 71. a year, and 
 .»it is reduced to 21. 13s. 
 
 Veneris , C° die Apritis, 1832. 
 
 The Rev. Thomas Vigors again called in, and further 
 
 Examined. 
 
 There is the case of William Henesey M‘Loftus. 
 The charge contained in that case is this; “ P. Gor¬ 
 man can declare on oath, that William Henesey 
 agreed with his proctor for his tithe for the sum of 
 61. 5s. in his presence, and the same proctor decreed 
 
APPENDIX* 
 
 XXXI11 
 
 him at court for the sum of 81. 9s., and took Samuel 
 Henesey’s two cows and heifer, in the month of July, 
 and sold them by auction for the sum of 8/.; the 
 said cattle were considered worth 16£. ; and the 
 year following- took said Henesey’s mare and foal, on 
 a decree for the sum of 21. 10s., together with the 
 cost of law, which amounted to 3/. 3s. 3d. so that 
 he could no longer keep his land; he was obliged to 
 quit the place, and he and his wife went to Ame¬ 
 rica.” Do you know anything concerning that case ; 
 was that one of the cases an account of which was 
 transmitted to you with a view to its being answer¬ 
 ed ?—I have no opportunity of obtaining any infor¬ 
 mation on it, as the proctor alluded to has been 
 dead for several years. 
 
 Did you ever hear any complaint made to you by that 
 man, or any other person, on the subject of this 
 charge ?—I have not the most distant idea that I ever 
 heard of it. 
 
 How does he appear to stand in the face of your 
 books ?—He appears clear in Birdshal’s books up to 
 1829. 
 
 Can you give the amount in answer to that ques¬ 
 tion ?—Up to 1829, in Birdshal’s books, he appears 
 to stand clear. I shall refer to him in Mahar’s books. 
 There are two William Heneseys ; they are so in 
 the former books. In Mahar’s books, 220 or 221, 
 William Henry Henesey, jun,, is stated to be gone 
 to America in the year 1825, having paid within 10s. 
 or 10s. 3d. of the amount due by him. The other 
 William Henesey appears to have paid the whole, 
 except a balance of 7s., up to the year 1824, in Ma¬ 
 har’s time. He appears to owe 11. Is. 6d. to the 
 year 1829. 
 
 The next case is that of Patrick Lyons; as to 
 whom it is stated, that he “ paid three years’ tithe 
 in work to Mr. Vigors, who always sent him to his 
 
 g 5 
 
XXXIV 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 tithe agent with his bill of work, as payment for his 
 tithe: that he never got a receipt from the agent, 
 who was shortly after called away from this to settle 
 his accounts in another world ; but that when he was 
 dead his clerk processed Lyons for the same tithes, 
 and gave up all into the hands of the next agent, 
 *who decreed the poor man, and made him pay it 
 again with costs of decree, bailiffs,” &c. Do you know 
 anything of that?—I find that in April, 1820, in 
 Mahar’s account, I am debited with 13s. on account 
 of work by my order. I also find further credits to the 
 same man for different work, and turf and other 
 things he supplied me with. So that instead of its 
 being as it is stated, “ shortly preceding the death of 
 Mahar he was entitled to credit for these 13s.” it ap¬ 
 pears to have been six years at least antecedent to the 
 death of Mahar, to whom he lived close, and had an 
 opportunity of seeing how his accounts stood; 
 whereas it is insinuated in the statement that Ma¬ 
 har died shortly after the period when he was en¬ 
 titled to credit for this sum, and that he had no op¬ 
 portunity for investigating it. 
 
 It was six years before he died, or thereabouts ?— 
 Yes; I am not certain if it was in 1826, or subse¬ 
 quent to it, but it was about that time. 
 
 Did he ever make any complaint to you on that 
 subject ?—I never heard anything of the kind. 
 
 He never complained to you ?—I have not any re¬ 
 collection that he did. 
 
 You left these things to the discretion of your 
 agent, you said yesterday ?—That was speaking with 
 regard to Old Leighlin ; we are now speaking of 
 Powerstown, in which there were two agents, Mahar, 
 who I found there acting as tithe proctor, and who 
 was continued by me till age and infirmity rendered 
 him incapable of acting; subsequent to the year 1824; 
 he lived about two years after that time. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 The whole of your statements are merely from 
 what he told you ?—No ; with regard to some of the 
 transactions, they have come within my own know¬ 
 ledge, and those I have answered from myself, others 
 I have answered with or from affidavits which I have 
 been furnished with, and I am able to investigate 
 others from documents that have been returned to me 
 in an authentic form. 
 
 What you have been just stating is from the ac¬ 
 count returned ?—Yes, in which Mahar has debited 
 me on this man’s account; I cannot pretend to say 
 further than that. It would be most extraordinary 
 if, during a period of six years from the time credit 
 appears to have been given to him, the man could 
 have suffered six successive years’ tithes to have run, 
 without ascertaining whether he got credit for these 
 13s. 
 
 The next statement is, “ that after his death his 
 clerk processed Lyons for the same tithes, and gave 
 up all into the hands of the next agent, who decreed 
 the poor man and made him pay it again, with costs 
 of decree, bailiff, and so forth. What do you know 
 of that ?—It strikes me that the whole thing is a 
 strange fabrication ; for I find it is not only for this 
 sum of 13s. he has got credit in Mahar’s account with 
 me, but for other payments. I am charged in his 
 account, April 28th, 1820, Patrick Lyons by order, 
 13s.; 1821, May 8th, 8s. 
 
 With respect to the remainder of the charge, did 
 you ever hear of his having been processed by the 
 clerk of Mahar?—I never heard of it, at least I have 
 not any recollection of having ever heard of any such 
 thing. 
 
 Have you reason to believe there is any foundation 
 for it?—I have no reason to form a belief on the 
 subject, except from documents before me ; and the 
 statements, put forth here appear to be contrary to 
 
XXXVI 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the facts ascertained by these, which are the only 
 means I have of forming a judgment. 
 
 The next charge is that of Gorman. The case is 
 stated thus: “ I can safely declare on oath, that my 
 wife and six children were sick of a fever for five 
 months; my money and credit were run out; I was 
 still satisfied when I saw my little harvest ripe. I 
 went to the proctor to agree for my tithes, knowing 
 the danger of being in his power. I stated my piti¬ 
 ful case, hoping that he would be more lenient, but 
 to my great mortification I never found him so se¬ 
 vere ; he thought I would give any sum he would 
 ask sooner than let my family starve, but I would not 
 give him his charge, it being 15s. more than usual; 
 accordingly I set out the tithe, but my witness having 
 died a few weeks after, the following spring I was 
 cited to the bishop’s court, and obliged to pass my 
 note for 26s. costs, together with his demand ; I had 
 but two acres and a half, for which his demand was 
 1/. 15s. On another occasion, I was processed for 
 U. 14s. tithe, which sum I paid, and took up the 
 original note, and in two years after I was processed 
 for the same debt, but having produced the note, the 
 suit was dropped.” Do you know anything concern¬ 
 ing that case ?—With regard to the first part of it, I 
 am enabled to state, that I was made acquainted with 
 the fact of himself and his family having been in a 
 fever. 
 
 About what time was that ?—I think it was about 
 two years ago. I do not know anything of the 
 transaction here detailed beyond the fact, that Gor¬ 
 man mentioned that his family had been sick, re¬ 
 questing my indulgence, and promising payment 
 when he received the amount of work he had en¬ 
 gaged to finish as a stone-cutter in Carlow gaol. I 
 immediately acceded to the proposal, and agreed to 
 take the payments as Gorman offered. Of the tithes 
 
APPENDIX. XXXvil 
 
 from 1817 to 1824, amounting' to 15/. 13s. l^d., he 
 paid by work done for me 13/. 11s. 5d. He owes 
 four years’ tithes to 1830. I have his own receipts 
 or bills before me, in which the account is stated. 
 There is a remarkable feature attending- even the 
 form of the first order; it is directed to Mahar the 
 agent: “ I have engaged from Patrick Gorman three 
 pair of stone piers, 3/. 15s. to be allowed in his. tithes 
 for 1817, 1818, and 1819.” I have embraced the 
 entire period of my incumbency, and I show here 
 from the year 1817, in which my incumbency com¬ 
 menced, up to the year 1826, he has credit for 
 13/. 11s. 5d., by work done for me, and the whole 
 amount of tithes was but 15/. 13s. l^d., a difference 
 of 1/. 2s.; so that he appears in that series of years 
 to have paid by his work as a stone-cutter the whole 
 of his tithe, with the exception of a trifle of 1/. 2s. 
 He expressed his thankfulness to me for the accommo¬ 
 dation of allowing him first to pay some money he 
 owed, incurred by the illness of his family. I assented 
 to the proposal, and said, I must now depend on your 
 promise ; yet I believe there are now four years re¬ 
 maining due to me, the entire of 1828, 1829, 1830, 
 and 1831. The tithes of 1828 and 1829 would be 
 2/. 10s.; the balance appearing due is 21. 5s., besides 
 1830 and 1831. 
 
 Can you tell if he was ever processed by you for 
 any tithe ?—I believe he was. I am not quite clear 
 whether he stated to me that he had been processed 
 at that time, but I recollect I interposed and told my 
 proctor he had promised to pay me by work. I have 
 an impression of that kind on my mind ; I merely 
 mentioned in reply to a question whether he was pro¬ 
 cessed ; I believe he was; I am not certain ; I think 
 he told me so himself. 
 
 Did he on that occasion make any statement to 
 you of what is now alleged, that your proctor was 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 xxxviii 
 
 particularly severe upon him?—I have no recollection 
 that he did so at all. 
 
 Did your proctor, when you directed him to give 
 him indulgence in consequence of his promise to pay, 
 did he express an objection to do so ?—I have no re¬ 
 collection on the point; but I am satisfied he would 
 not do so if I had desired him to draw his pen and 
 cancel the debt altogether; he could have no motive 
 for not doing so. 
 
 Did he complain to you of having been twice pro¬ 
 cessed for the same debt?—I have no recollection of 
 that whatever; I have a recollection of his having 
 come to my house with a bill which he furnished of 
 Work, and I gave him credit for the amount; I be¬ 
 lieve it is this which I hold in my hand, and with a 
 direction that the amount of his bill should be allow¬ 
 ed him, on which I or my agent paid him the balance; 
 it is struck in my own hand-writing after he furnished 
 me some stone-cutter’s work. 
 
 The next case is Daniel Murphy, Curragh, whose 
 statement in that case is, that he “ can swear that 
 he noticed Mr. Vigors to take the tithe of his oats in 
 kind; counted out the same, which was left on the 
 field till it was rotten, not being taken by Mr. Vigors 
 or his proctor. Murphy understanding from the proc¬ 
 tor that the tithe of the oats came to 2s. 6d., sold the 
 remaining nine-tenths, which amounted only to 2s. 9d. 
 which left him a balance of 3d. He was also put to 
 8d. costs the same year, being cited for the crop, in¬ 
 cluding wheat, oats, potatoes, and when paying the 
 costs he wanted Is., for which shilling he was after¬ 
 wards processed.” Do you know anything about that 
 charge ?—Nothing beyond what the books furnish 
 me. With regard to the transaction, it is already in 
 evidence, that my proctor has stated that he never 
 processed any man for such a trifling sum. As to 
 myself, I do not suppose that any notice was served 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 on me personally ; I suppose it was served on my 
 agent. 
 
 You have no recollection that any was personally 
 served on you ?—No; nor was it the habit to do so. 
 
 Was he processed?—I have no knowledge what¬ 
 ever of it. 
 
 Are you at all apprised of the statement, that the 
 oats which were set out were left to rot in the field ? 
 —I am not apprised of it; but I am aware that in a 
 great number of instances, after the tithe composition 
 failed to be carried into operation, as I stated yester¬ 
 day, there was a desire to reduce the value of the 
 tithes of the parish, in order perhaps to effect it on 
 such reduced scale, and that notices were served to 
 set out the tithes. I believe, on the statement of a 
 variety of persons I then had occasion to employ, 
 that there was much of fraud committed in setting 
 out the tithes; and even, as was proved in court, in 
 some instances the tithes were fraudulently con¬ 
 veyed away; and I should think that corn being left 
 on the ground to rot must have been in consequence 
 of my agent being convinced that the tithes were not 
 fairly set out, in such a way that he could have proved 
 some fraud in the transaction ; that is, however, but 
 a general answer. With the particular case I am not 
 acquainted ; I was acquainted with several cases in 
 which facts of the kind were proved to have been 
 committed. 
 
 Were you apprised of this, so as to be able to ob¬ 
 tain from Birdshal any explanation of it ?—I find not 
 any notice with regard to Daniel Murphy, Curragh, 
 in particular; I believe his name appears only for one 
 year; and in looking to it there is no notice whatever, 
 nor any reference to any transaction of the kind. 
 
 How does he appear to stand in your books now ? 
 —-He does not appear in any book till 1830. I find 
 the entire tithe of the year is rated, without any ob- 
 
xl 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 servation of credit for payment, or anything - with 
 reference to it. I have searched the preceding books, 
 and I cannot find any such person as Daniel Murphy; 
 and he appears to owe the entire of the tithe of that 
 year, 1830, the only year in which I find his name 
 entered. 
 
 What is the amount of the tithe charge ?*—The 
 tithe charge for oats 3s., potatoes 7s. 6d., wheat 
 3s. 6d.; making in the whole, \l. 8s. 6d. 
 
 The next case is that of “ Ned Curran, in the pa¬ 
 rish of Grange Litta, who can swear that he passed 
 his note to Mahar, not being able to pay when de¬ 
 manded ; but when the time for paying mentioned in 
 note was expired, Curran paid the money, but left 
 the note lying in Mahar’s hands ; neither did he get 
 receipt for the sum paid; but in two years after he 
 was processed, and decreed for the amount of the 
 same note again, and his horse, the only property he 
 had, was canted for the amount of note, costs, &c., 
 and has been since left without one.” Do you know 
 anything of that charge ?—There is not any such de¬ 
 nomination in Powerstown ; the adjoining parish is 
 Grange Sylva, of which Mahar was also proctor ; 
 but I have no concern with that; nor is there any 
 such person, as I could discover, holding tithes in 
 my parish. 
 
 The next case is “ Maurice Gehan, who states he 
 can swear that he was compelled by Mahar to give 
 him an acre of meadow, worth at least hi. for 2/. 10s., 
 in lieu of tithes which Mahar said were due to him ; 
 and Gehan fearing lest he should be visited with 
 Mahar’s ire, had to consent to the aforesaid agreement. 
 But this was not the worst of Gehan’s case, for 
 Mahar afterwards charged him with 8s. tithe for the 
 said acre ; so that the net amount of the meadow was 
 6nly 21. 2s. Gehan had also to give Mahar a heifer 
 at his own valuation.” Do you know any thing of 
 
Appendix. 
 
 that ?—My observation on that is, that Mahar is 
 dead, and nothing- to explain the transaction appears 
 in his book. 
 
 Was any complaint ever made to you on the sub¬ 
 ject?—I have not the slightest recollection of any 
 complaint. I have stated generally my firm convic¬ 
 tion, the result of the recalling every thing to my 
 recollection, that I have never had a complaint pre¬ 
 ferred against Mahar in any instance but one, and 
 that was not with regard to my own tithes. 
 
 You know nothing whatever of this?—No. With 
 regard to Gehan, he appears to owe, for 1829 and 
 
 1830, £4. 4s. 6d., besides the tithes of 1830 and 
 
 1831. As to the transactions with Mahar, I am alto¬ 
 gether unacquainted with them; they appear not to 
 be matters connected with the tithes. 
 
 There is a general charge against Mahar, “ that 
 for 24 years he always acted in the same manner, and 
 has frequently compelled the poor to pay one year's 
 tithe twice ; taking from them every article of either 
 land or property which he fancied, at his own valua¬ 
 tion ; and those who refused were sure to suffer. Note, 
 this Mahar had been bred up a Catholic ; but a Pro¬ 
 testant curate, named Litta, lodged at his father’s, to 
 whom he paid £10 a year, and employed young 
 Mahar at a guinea a year to carry his bible and sur¬ 
 plice to church : he also taught him to write his name 
 and add whole numbers. This Litta having farmed 
 some tithes, employed Mahar to assist him in the 
 _ collection ; and as he evinced great zeal in his voca¬ 
 tion, and a disposition not to be swayed by remorse 
 or compassion, he became himself, on the recommen¬ 
 dation of Litta and Sir Nicholas Loftus, proctor or 
 farmer of the tithes of the parishes of Powerstown, 
 Grange Sylva, Paulstown, Kilmavahill, Dungarvin, 
 and Ballinkillen, through which he exercised his 
 cruelties till his death.” Do you know anything of 
 
t » * 
 
 xhi 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 that ?—I have stated that, on my being presented to 
 the parish of Powerstown in 1817, the late Sir Ed¬ 
 ward Loftus, in the warmest manner, recommended 
 Mahar as a person in whose probity I might confide, 
 and on whom I might rely as a person that would 
 give satisfaction to the parishioners; that he had 
 been a number of years acting not only as tithe proc* 
 tor, but had himself rented the tithe. There was a 
 remarkable expression used by one of the family, that 
 he was not only an honest man, but a person having 
 principles and feelings beyond those in his situation ; 
 he was a man of honour. 
 
 You have already stated to the Committee, that 
 there never was a complaint respecting any claim on 
 your account made against Mahar, during all the 
 time he acted for you ?—That is my firm conviction, 
 and at all periods ; I have it on my mind that I never 
 had a complaint produced against him, except in the 
 solitary instance already stated. 
 
 There are two other cases, Maurice Gehan, and 
 Martin Cullen, which relate to transactions of the 
 same nature, alleged to be done by Mahar, making 
 him pay over his tithe; do you make the same reply 
 as to that ?—Yes. 
 
 With respect to these men, how do they appear 
 to stand in your books; do they appear to have in¬ 
 dulgence ?—They appear to owe, Maurice Gehan, SI. 
 exclusive of the tithes of 1830 and 1831; and Martin 
 Cullen appears to owe £4. 4s. 6d. independent of the 
 tithe of 1831. 
 
 What is the annual claim against them for tithe ? 
 —At the time Mahar gave up his accounts to me, 
 Martin Cullen appears to be indebted in the sum of 
 £3. 14s. 8d. which was more than the amount of the 
 tithes of the year 1824; and he appears to have 
 paid in September 1825, through the hands of Mahar, 
 21.; and he appears to have paid at a subsequent 
 
APPENDIX* 
 
 xllil 
 
 period the balance, through Sir Nicholas Loftus dis¬ 
 charging the amount. As to Maurice Gehan, he ap¬ 
 pears to have owed £5. Os. 4|d. at the time Mahar 
 gave up his accounts, and it has been paid off; the 
 first by cash through Mahar, September 1825, and 
 the remainder by order of work ; both those entries 
 are in my own hand. Mahar’s accounts are closed in 
 1824; and he appears to have had till September or 
 October 1825 to pay off the arrears. 
 
 It would seem from that as if they had settled in 
 account ?—The entry places the amount to their 
 credit, as the payment has come through the hands 
 of Mahar. 
 
 Neither of these men have made any complaint to 
 you respecting these charges ?—I have no idea of 
 anything of the kind. 
 
 You have told the Committee the character of 
 Mahar; what was the character of Rainsford, the 
 man who is employed by you in the other parish ?— 
 He is a man who stands high in character in every 
 respect; he is a man of principle and strict probity. 
 
 Have you had any complaint against him from the 
 people, for exaction or oppression ?—-I have no idea 
 of having had any complaint on account of his con¬ 
 duct in the management of my tithes; on the con¬ 
 trary, I believe he is esteemed among the people who 
 have dealt with him generally; he is a shopkeeper in 
 the town, and I believe a great number of the parish¬ 
 ioners of Louchlan have been in the habit of dealing 
 with him. Independently of that general statement 
 as to the character of Rainsford, I had special ground 
 of forming my opinion, and I had never had cause 
 to change it,