Tithes, but also that the conservative candidates have one and all profest their readiness to give them up, of course as far as the carrying a bill for commutation through the Commons, if such a bill is proposed, goes, no rational man can doubt about it, because there is not one voice to say No to it. Nor can it be expected that the Lords should on that point make any stand. All that can be said, then, by those who, like the writer, while they are not blind to the partial inconveniences of the Tithe System, still believe that, on the whole,* it has less of evil and more of good than any other feasible plan, is their honest conviction, that after resolutions against Tithes have been moved, and a Committee appointed, it is a very doubtful matter whether that Committee will be able to devise the practical means of getting a new investment of church property which shall not be less secure, shall not secularize the clergy more, and shall not expose individuals to greater difficulties and losses. If these desirable objects can be effected, no persons will rejoice more to find themselves mistaken. The attempt being made at this stage of our progress, it is clear enough that that portion of the landed proprietors which hoped to profit by the spoils will be defeated, and the only parties who will suffer (if the objects above alluded to can be at all effected) will be the farmers. They had the advantage of having two parties to deal with, each of whom they could play off against the other, whether fairly or unfairly; and not being content with this enormous advantage, they are now about to lose it. Were they in better circumstances, they could claim no compassion. For some years they have been profiting (where they did profit) very much at the expense of the clergy, and they have requited the obligation by doing all they could to destroy their best friends.

With respect to church property, there is one error so inveterate that one can hardly hope to be able to make any impression on those

coolly that the Bishop of London had £100,000 a year, the Bishop of Durham more, and that it was high time that they should all be stript of their carriages and servants, and, after receiving a maintenance, the rest should be given to the poor. It will give great satisfaction to the landed interest to hear that the same honourable gentleman assured the electors that this was very little, that he looked far beyond that, for that men like the Dukes of Northumberland, Buccleugh, and Rutland, were pests to the country, that no man could spend above a certain sum except on his vices, and that a reformed Parliament would soon strip them of their abominable wealth, and give it to the industrious and excellent poor. Corporations, too, were all infamous. He was himself, said this honourable gentleman, member of one-viz. the Inner Temple, which was worth three millions. And what was it used for? Why to supply the eating and drinking of a very few wretched creatures. They, too, were to be stript at once, and the excellent poor to be enriched by their spoils. And such men are to have a voice in settling our destinies! Will this person be honest enough to avow, or honest enough to disavow, the language of the hustings, at St. Stephen's? His name is quite ready, if his friends like to ask for it.

No one has ever argued against the Tithe System with the real practical knowledge, wisdom, and ability of “Z. Y." Yet there are some inconveniences of a change which he has overlooked. In a large living, land would, perhaps, not be a dangerous investment. Six hundred acres might be divided into three farms, and if one farmer failed the rector would not be quite ruined. But in no small livings could the glebe farm be divided, for obvious reasons; and then in case of a failure of one tenant, what becomes of the clergyman who has no private income?

who entertain it. It is this. Reformers hold, or chuse to hold that the church is one great corporation, possessed of property with which it was endowed as a corporation for definite purposes. Then they very sagaciously go on to argue that there must of necessity be in every body politic some power of compelling corporations to effect the purposes for which they were created, and to remedy such evils as to the use and distribution of their property as have crept in with time. Of course, from these premises, it is very easy to deduce any consequences one pleases as to changes of church property. If any good can be effected for religion, why not throw it all into one fund,— why not take from the large livings to increase the small, or do anything else which ingenuity may dictate? But where is the foundation for all this? What is it which erects the church into such a corporation ? This is a pure fancy, invented in ignorance or malice. The real history is this, that the rector of every parish is a corporation sole, an integral himself, not an atom combining with many other atoms to form one. The foundations of church property are separate and local acts, not one national act. The possessor of a certain estate endowednot the church at large, but-the rector of his parish with the tithes of that estate to maintain a rector for ever in that parish, in order that he might reside there, and benefit that parish temporally and spiritually. Now this being the real truth, when the parish of A has been a rectory perhaps since the Conquest, when tithes are still paid to the rector, when the rectory continues in every respect temporal, and spiritual, to afford to the parish the benefits contemplated by him who erected it, and in every respect to answer the purposes of the founder, may the church reformers be asked, by what law, or what imagination of law, or right, or equity, they take away any of the tithes of that parish, give them to the parish of B merely because it is poor, and thereby violate both the letter and spirit of the original benefactor's foundation? If this may be done, what may not be done as to property ?*

But this matter must be pursued somewhat farther still. The favourite argument for present changes is the alleged changes which took place at the Reformation. If, it is said, the property was transferred from the Roman Catholic to the Protestant church, how can any one deny the right of Parliament to interfere again? A little knowledge of history would be singularly useful to church reformers. Would they be so good as to point out the act or acts of Parliament which interfered in the way they imagine? The real fact is, that this argument, like many others, arises from pure ignorance. What actually happened was this-not that the property was transferred from one church to another, but-that, the constitution and government of the church remaining the same. the greater doctrines remaining the same-the purposes remaining the same, the church in England assumed to itself that power (which many of the first Roman

* Dr. Burton, in the second edition of his second pamphlet, in commenting on this Magazine, overlooks the fact that the writer attacks his principle, while his reply only defends the degree in which he would apply it.

Catholic writers allow that every national church possesses) of reforming its own system, and accordingly threw off many additions to its creed and worship which had been introduced by the superstition and error of recent ages-that a large portion of the clergy gladly accepted this great benefit, and remained in possession of their benefices, and in discharge of their parochial duties. What transfer of property took place when A.B., being rector of C. before the Reformation, continued to be rector of C. after it, using an English liturgy instead of a Latin one, and having renounced the recent and corrupt doctrines of purgatory, transubstantiation, &c., but still maintaining all the doctrines held by the primitive church, still abiding by its discipline, and deriving his orders in an unbroken succession from the primitive church.* In short, property was not transferred from one church to another, but the church itself underwent certain changes, retaining its great features, its great purposes, and the property with which it had been endowed in order to effect them.

Still it will be argued that monasteries were suppressed, and their property taken, and that changes took place as to bishoprics, and, it being found convenient to argue the question on the ground of precedents, this will be supposed to justify any further changes now. To this there is, however, an answer, which they who use the argument do not, perhaps, exactly foresee. If an actual necessity arises, as in the case of resistance to government, so in the case of property, though it is impossible to define the limits within which the necessity is to be restrained, evils which cannot be endured must be remedied by means not justifiable in other cases, by means perfectly abominable, if no farther reason for their use can be suggested than mere improvement or convenience. If the country is desolated, or if a moral pestilence is devastating it, because there are a few livings of 10007. per annum, while there are very many under 100%., no doubt means for reducing the inequality may be resorted to, which, under less grave circumstances, ought to be denounced as full of danger to all property whatever. If it is merely contended that this inequality is inconvenient and undesirable in some respects (while it is also advantageous in some) he must be a bold man who would recommend a recourse to means which are not justifiable in ordinary cases for remedying the inconvenience. In all cases, he who asserts the necessity has to prove it. And, consequently, as to the case of the monasteries, the answer is, that if there was a necessity the act was justifiable, but does not justify a similar line of action where there is no necessity-and that if there was not a necessity, a bad precedent is an equally bad argument. How strange, how marvellous a thing is it, in such a state of society as ours, in the midst of all the high civilization, the luxury and refinement which strike the eye on every

It is true enough that all parishes were not created at the same time, but many were created before purgatory was received as a doctrine of the church, before the celibacy of the clergy was confirmed, &c. &c. So that even if a transfer had taken place, from the Roman Catholic to the Protestant church, in very many cases it would have been a restitution of property to that church to which it had been originally given.

VOL. III.-Jan. 1833.

side, to find one's self at every moment treating questions which belong to the very first steps of society. What must be the condition of the lofty and gorgeous superstructure, when we are digging round the foundations, and pulling out its corner stones?

There is another point or two on which it is desirable to say a few words, because so much false argument is perpetually used about them. And first of all (the beautiful connexion between the various parts of these papers cannot but be admired) as to curates.

Curates are so dreadfully ill used and so ill paid! This is a subject on which there is as much confusion of ideas and language as on any of which Church Reformers treat. Do they mean to say that men ought not to go into the Church as young men? If they do say that, how are the future clergy to support themselves at all before they enter their profession? If the Church Reformers do not mean this, do they mean, on the other hand, that as soon as a young man pleases to signify his will and pleasure, that he will be ordained, the Church is, in extreme gratitude for such a declaration and in testimony of his full and entire knowledge of the whole duties of his profession and his entire competence to discharge them, to provide him with a handsome income, nearly half the livings of the rich incumbents, too, being under 150l. a-year? What other profession is there in which the early years devoted to it, and devoted to gaining a knowledge of it, produce even a bare subsistence? Is the Curate for his first seven years worse off than the physician and the barrister for theirs? The hardship is not in that stage of life. The hardship is (if pecuniary motives are to be much looked to in such a profession) that when, after some years of exertion, he becomes an incumbent, his income, whatever be the claims on it, either private or public, is limited, and cannot be increased by his exertions or his reputation; while, to the Physician and the Barrister, there are no limits, except those which their physical powers impose. There is no clamour more idle than that about the hardships imposed on young men as curates, and one is quite sure that no reputable man among them joins in it. Will any man maintain boldly that any but the most evil and mischievous effects would arise in any profession from giving a man a competence the instant he entered on it? This would be the right step, if you wish to make men careless and to keep them ignorant and inexperienced, in any profession. Suppose such a measure to have been effected in the Church, the Church Reformers would be the first to cry out (and with great justice) against so unwise an arrangement. What, they would say, do you really wish to prevent men from having the least uncertainty about worldly success in entering on such a profession? Do you wish that no man's love of God, and desire to do his work, should be exposed to the trial of even an hour's anxiety and doubt as to a future provision? Do you wish to hold out a premium to indolence, and to tell every man who abhors exertion, that the Church is his proper sphere, that he will be most comfortably provided for as soon as he enters it, and will have prospects of even a better provision afterwards? Do you wish to tell him, in the plainest language, that you do not care whether he takes any

pains to improve in his profession or not, or to discharge his duties as they ought to be discharged?

In answer, it would probably be urged, that by such considerations we shew that we do not think of the people, but merely of the Clergy and the provision for them, and that it is only due to the people of each parish that the Clergyman should be so properly paid that an efficient discharge of his duties may be rightly required at his hands. The proper reply is, that the Church is to be served by men, and not machines; that when a Clergyman quite perfect at once can be invented, our arguments fall to the ground, but that, till then, young men must go into the Church, that young men will be incompetent and inexperienced, and that giving them a sufficiency at once is the way to keep them so. If it is said that some inconveniences arise from all this to the people, the assertion must be admitted. It is tantamount to saying that the people are served in the church by imperfect beings called men, and that some inconvenience of this sort must arise. In some parts of the Roman Catholic Church this inconvenience is remedied in another way. The Clergy being unmarried do not require so much for their own purposes, and consequently the Bishop feels himself at liberty to send down to any Incumbent whom he pleases, a Curate to live in his house, to assist in the parish, and learn his duty. Supposing the Clergy to be unmarried, this, perhaps, is not a bad expedient, although serious evils occasionally arise from it. But in this country it was decided, nearly three centuries ago, that an unmarried Clergy was an evil of unspeakable magnitude. The simple truth is, that both people and pastors must submit to some inconveniences while both are frail and human, and that only paper Reformers think that they can devise schemes which will prevent all evils.* But is it meant that there are no Curates who suffer hardship, or is it meant to speak lightly of what they do suffer? Unquestionably not. Where a man has for

a considerable number of years done his duty faithfully as a Parish Minister, he has, beyond all question, the strongest claims to a better provision, and he suffers great hardship when he does not receive it. These cases are, however, very few. And let us look for a moment, first at those who profess to pity him, and then at the remedy for the evil. His real friends must demand, not that he shall have a benefice, but a rich benefice. If he were presented to one of the 4360 livings under 1501., or to one of the very many above this scale, but under 2501., much of the pity for him would cease, and he would become one of the rich and hateful Incumbents. Yet would this gentleman, as a Vicar or a Rector, even with 2007. a-year, with perhaps an old house to keep in repair, with the land tax and other charges on this vast benefice to pay, be much or at all better off than he was as a Curate with 1007. a-year and the glebe house kept in repair for him? Let it be remembered that there is not at present any reason for believing that each benefice would amount

In addition to what is here said, the reader is begged to refer to a note on a letter by G. W. R. in an earlier part of this number.