APPENDIX E. Extract from Mr. Wilmot Horton's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. "IF, for the sake of argument, it were admitted that the "Irish Roman Catholic had an inalienable claim upon the 66 property of the Protestant church, it is clear that he "would equally have a claim upon any property of which "he had been despoiled by any lay proprietor, whether "Catholic or Protestant, and which had been forfeited on "account of religious opinion. If, therefore, I am asked, "Has the Irish Catholic a right, in law or in equity, to 66 couple with the remission of the disabilities that attach to "the profession of his creed, the question of the resump❝tion of any property which, at former periods of Irish "history, may have belonged to his ancestors, and which 'they may have forfeited on account of their religious opi"nions? I answer, unquestionably not; because, though "it should be admitted that that spoliation had been "founded in injustice, the lapse of time has been so great, "that more injustice would be effected by the restitution, "than by the continuance of such property in the hands of "the present possessors. Nor is this answer weakened, "when coupled with the consideration, that many Catholic 'proprietors in Ireland are possessors of property which "has been wrested from the Catholics of former ages, on “account of their religion; and that, consequently, if the 'principle of lineal descent and of inalienable right be 66 66 66 66 "contended for, it must operate against the present Catholic proprietors, as well as against any other class of proprietors who may hold lands of this description. It would, besides, be practically impossible to effect such re❝titution on any just principles, from the want of title, and "from the absence of all real evidence; the proof of 66 right being necessarily limited to the mere name of a family, which was common as well to the dependents of a "clan, as to the heirs in blood of its chief. If this answer "be satisfactory with respect to lay property, it must be satisfactory with respect to church property. "Secondly, Has the Irish or the British Catholic any ❝right, in law, or in equity, to complain of the payment "of tithe to the Protestant clergyman? To this I should 66 answer in the negative, for a reason which appears to me "to be conclusive, namely, that tithes are not the property "of the tithe-payer, whether he be proprietor or tenant. "If he be the proprietor, it is perfectly demonstrable, that "when the property paying tithe came into possession of "himself or of his ancestors, (making an exception with respect to periods of confiscation,) so much less was paid "for it in consequence of its liability to this perpetual and "peculiar sort of charge. If he be a tenant, it is equally "demonstrable that if his landlord paid the tithe instead of "himself, he would have to pay, under the character of an "increase of rent, precisely the value of the tithe, whether "such tithe should be paid in kind or by composition. "There may, undoubtedly, be exceptions to this general "rule, arising from various causes incident to property; "but that such is the general rule, no one will venture to "deny and if this be conceded, what becomes of the complaint of the injustice of compelling the Catholic "proprietor, or the Catholic tenant, to pay tithe to a Pro 66 66 "testant lay proprietor, or to a protestant clergyman?—a complaint, be it observed, which is not unfrequently made, "and which is calculated, more than any other complaint, "to rouse the alarms and jealousies of the Protestant "church; and it is on this account that I press the subject upon your Grace's attention, and venture to state my opinion that the sentiments of the Roman Catholic body 66 upon the subject should be formally and distinctly "expressed. 66 66 "The Catholic proprietor pays tithe, not as a tax upon "his religion, but as a condition of his property, in the "same manner that he pays the interest of a mortgage or 66 66 66 a rent charge. The tenant pays it as a tax, and his rent "is proportionably diminished by his landlord, in conse66 quence of the existence of this tax, as in the case of "other taxes. To illustrate this principle familiarly: if a "landlord has two farms to let, of the same number of acres, and strictly of the same quality of land, and consequently of equal value, if he informs the applicants for "such farms that one of them, not being tithe-free, will be "let for 4501., the tithe being at a composition of 50l. per annum, and that the other, being tithe-free, will be let at 500l. per annum, he will find no difficulty in receiving “5007. in the one instance, when he only receives 4507. in "the other. In other words, his own interest is not equal "in these two farms, nor ought it to be so. The rule "already laid down will apply to it, that a less sum was 66 66 paid for the farm subject to tithe than for the other, at the "period of their respective acquisition. If these principles "be correct, tithes are to be considered as landed property; "and can the clergyman be fairly represented to the poor ༣ 66 man as an extortioner wresting from him his just earnings, any more than the landlord or the lay impropriator, "whether Protestant or Catholic? "To show strictly church property is landed property, “let me state an hypothetical case. In the year 1823, a "Protestant clergyman, in the south of Ireland, takes' his "tithe in kind from the Roman Catholic peasant. The pea"sant is told that he is robbed by the clergyman of a part "of his own property, for the sake of a religion to which " he does not belong; and this information excites in his "mind such a spirit of discontent and resentment as is cal"culated to lead him to the commission of any degree of outrage. I will suppose that in 1824, this tithe in kind "had been changed for a fixed composition, that is, a money payment, and that such money payment was paid by the "landlord in the first instance, and then claimed by the "landlord from the tenant, in the shape of an increase of 66 66 rent, or even that the money payment was made by the "tenant himself. The Roman Catholic peasant now regards "the clergyman with less jealousy; and as the money pay"ment partakes strictly of the nature of rent to his land 66 lord, although he may be perplexed by the operation, he "no longer views the clergyman with the same degree of indignation and distrust. Now let it be supposed that, in "1825, this money payment was commuted for glebe. In "that possible case the peasant would not longer come in "contact with the clergyman, any more than with any other “landholder; and under that supposed change he would "look upon him with the same feelings as he would look upon any other proprietor of land; and if that clergyman (though a Protestant) did his duty, his kindness and be"nevolence towards the poor in his immediate neighbour"hood, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, would be "felt in some measure as gratuitous service, and the impa"tience of oppression would be replaced or succeeded by feelings of kindness and gratitude. Now, under this 66 supposed change, has any violence been done to the "church ?" "I will not be tempted into a further disquisition upon "this part of the subject; and I will not take the opportu 66 66 66 nity of stating some strongly-formed opinions as to the "manner in which such commutation might be carried into "effect. It is enough for me to have established the principle, that tithes are property; and that whether they are property of individuals or of a corporate body, no species "of complaint can legitimately proceed from those who pay "them in their character as property, however inconvenient "their mode of assessment must necessarily be. But here "a third question arises, of such peculiar delicacy, that I "should be most unwilling to advert to it, were it not that "I consider the argument as incomplete without allusion "to its introduction. Have the Irish Roman Catholic clergy any sort of right, in law or in equity, to prefer a "claim to the proceeds of church property in Ireland, or to 66 66 any part of it, not as disputing the abstract right of the "Protestant clergy to that property, but on the ground "that those proceeds exceed the income necessary for the support of the Protestant Church? I answer, unques 66 66 tionably not, more than any other class of the community. "Not more than if such property were to be claimed by "the army or the navy, or applied for the liquidation of the "national debt, for public improvement, or for any other "conceivable purpose, either of utility or benevolence. "Here, I think, I may rest the argument, without intro"ducing that which would invidiously prejudice the ques❝tion, namely the abstract suitableness of the Protestant "church in Ireland to the Protestant population; for, with 66 respect to that argument, were I even prepared to agree "with those who contend that the Protestant clergy in Ire S |