consisting, in part, of live and dead stock, and partly of money, which is laid out in draining and other improvements. In this speculation, after paying for rent, tithes, taxes, and poor-rates, he expects to maintain himself and his family, and, at the expiration of his lease, to have his capital preserved, if not improved, and in a condition to take another farm, or to continue in his present occupation. Here, then, is no sacrifice of capital to the land-owner or the tithe-owner. Of whatever improvements the farmer makes, he himself has his share; and whether he leaves the farm in the condition in which he found it, or in a better condition, the tithe-owner has no benefit which does not fall to the land-owner in his greater proportion of nine-tenths to onetenth. If no stock is kept upon the farm, there is no milk and no wool, and, of course, no tithe of milk or wool; if there is no draining and no ploughing, there is no corn, and no tithe of corn. But under such husbandry the Parson suffers loss, the landlord greater loss, and the tenant the greatest loss: his capital is secure, but it is unprofitable. Thus far it is perfectly true that the rights and interests of the landlord and the tithe-owner, of the laity and the Clergy, are the same. In this crisis of her secular interests, the Church is sensible of the advantage which she possesses in the powerful advocacy of Lord Brougham; and supports her cause on the authority of his decision, when he laid it down as clear and indisputable doctrine, that the landholder and the Parson are co-partners in the land, of which the one is entitled to nine-tenths, and the other to one-tenth. I have often thought, that if I were concerned in the collection of tithes, I would argue even with a quaker, and to his conviction, if he were an honest man; not upon the expedience of an ecclesiastical establish- · ment, upon which we should never agree, but upon the simpler question, whether he hired or bought his land subject to a particular payment, enforcing my claim if it were subject, abandoning it if it were not subject. The great fallacy of Mr. Scrope and Major Court consists in supposing that what is spent in one year is spent every year; forgetting that the capital employed in the first years of the tenant's occupancy is intended to return itself with a premium in the course of his lease. It is like taking land on a building lease, under which the builder lays out six or eight hundred pounds on a few feet of ground; not meaning to repeat this expenditure, but to draw from it such a profit during his lease as, at the end of it, will not leave him a poorer man. The only difference in the farmer's speculation is, that he wants the protection of a permanent lease of the tithes, commensurate with his occupation of the land, and in proportion to the expense which he means to incur in its cultivation. At present, he enters into a contract with the Parson as well as with the landlord: with the latter the contract is permanent,—with the Parson it is only contingent, and may be voided by the death or the preferment of the Parson. The tenant's interest in the adjustment of tithes demands a permanent composition, without which he is aggrieved, and has reason to complain.

But it is contended that the Church has no right to the tithes, or any other property over which the State has absolute power. The drift of this argument is, that they are not private but public property, and that

Tithes, and other profits and emoluments of ecclesiastical livings and promotions, being merely stipendiary payments for the performance of public religious duties, are not distinguishable from the salaries of other public functionaries generally; and, consequently, that the payment of tithes may be regulated and modified at the discretion of the legislature, or may be exchanged for any other mode of providing for the maintenance of the Clergy, which may be deemed more conducive to the advancement of religion and the public good.

*

I am prepared to admit that Church property is public property, in such sense as the lawyers speak, I think, of functionary trusts; that it is not, and should not be made subservient to any private ends; that it is charged with certain public duties; that the public has a right to demand and enforce the performance of those duties; and has at various periods interposed, and rightly interposed its authority, in the regulation of those duties. But if it is right that those duties should be performed, and they are performed as they ought to be performed, has the State any right, or lawful power to seize the funds from which the remuneration arises, and which funds never belonged to the State; and, therefore, can in no sense be resumed by the State? An estate may be left for an improper or illegal use, as for the diffusion of infidelity: the law forbids the use. But the State has no control over the fund, which devolves upon the natural heir. So, if the duty is legal, but not performed, as in the case of Hertford College, Oxford, the trust expires, and the fund reverts, not to the State, but to the heir. The State has no claim upon the funds of the colleges in Oxford and Cambridge, which proceeded from private benefactions, and would revert to the heirs of those benefactors. Let this argument be applied to the property of the Church. If one of the old Norman barons had left his estates to his heirs, their claim would have been respected, and any appropriation, which he or they might have made to individuals, would have been confirmed by the law: but, if it was his or their will to leave the estate to certain religious or charitable uses; if the State has from time to time, and in various enactments, recognised these uses; if the original title is indisputable, and the possession has for many generations been undisturbed; is the title therefore void, because it was not left to private but to public uses? "The documents," says Archdeacon Lyall, "are innumerable, which still exist, with the very names of the individuals by whom they were allotted to the Church many hundred years, for the most part, before the land from which they accrue came into the possession of the ancestors of any persons now alive. The Romish Church, in the plenitude of its power, made new and arbitrary appropriations of some of this property other portions were left to their original use. At the time of the Reformation, those which had not been previously alienated, remained in the hands of their respective possessors: those which had been alienated, the king resumed and distributed,—some arbitrarily to his favourites, others with consideration of the original founders, as the estates of Hedingham Nunnery were given to the De Veres. If the rights of the Church to her estates are to be no more respected, what is the security of the lay-impropriators? In what respect are they possessed of private property? The king did

seize their estates; the king did grant them; and, if the same arbitrary power is to be renewed, the king may reclaim them. Their title is no ancient mystery: they also are chargeable with certain duties, of which in their turn an account may be required: and, here again, the rights of the Church and the landlord are the same; the spoliation of the one will not improve the security of the other.

Even advowsons are now denied to be private property, on the ground that they were originally honorary trusts, which ought never to have been alienated, and which confer no private benefit. And yet, I would ask, whether advowsons, from the Reformation to the present day, have not been, as private property, held, inherited, bequeathed, bought and sold? I would further ask, whether, in the purchase and sale, the price has not been regulated by the value of the privilege which is implied-the wealth or poverty of the benefice to which the advowson is the right of presentation? There is but one answer to these questions: and I proceed to state, that there are nearly 8,000 livings, more than two-thirds of the whole number, in the hands of private patrons, who have purchased an hereditary interest in these advowsons, and the public or private property to which they are attached. Now, if the Church property be resumed, or if it be equalized, will it be said that the patrons, the value of whose patronage is confiscated, suffer no loss? On what principle of right may I take from a valuable living belonging to the Earl of Derby, to augment a small living belonging to Lord Grosvenor, on which I may not be justified in taking a field from the one, and conveying it to the other; or on which I may not be allowed to take the card-purse of the dowager, and the sample-bag of the farmer, and make an equal distribution of the coin and the grain? I will put a case, which occurs under my own observation. The advowsons of two adjoining parishes have lately been sold: the one a vicarage not producing 250l. a year, the other a rectory worth 900l. or 1,000l. The value of these benefices was unquestionably considered in the purchase; the one may have been sold for two, the other for eight thousand pounds: by what principle of law or equity shall 3507. be taken from the larger and added to the smaller benefice, unless an adequate compensation is paid by him that receives, to him that abandons the difference?

I desire not, however, to be the apologist of ecclesiastical abuses: I am no admirer of the extreme wealth, or the extreme poverty of the Church; and I have little doubt that the appropriation of her revenues may be improved, and that they may be distributed more equally, and more beneficially. I have no pleasure in the exaggerations, the mistakes, the misrepresentations of the Black-Book, on the subject of pluralities: it is a sickening detail, and I have always felt aggrieved and ashamed, that there is any foundation for these reproaches

Hæc opprobria nobis

Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli.

Nepotism, favouritism, and private aggrandizement, become not a holy and spiritual profession. Instead of dwelling on this painful thesis, I wish to express my concurrence with Dr. Burton, and as I

am persuaded, with all who have read his very sensible pamphlet, that all the demands for Church reform should aim at practical good; and this practical good would, in my opinion, be consummated by the more constant residence of Bishops in their dioceses, with a division for the convenience of the Clergy, and their more easy access to the diocesans of the larger dioceses; by the residence of the Archdeacons on valuable preferments appropriated to their use, in their several archdeaconries; and by the residence, wherever it can be effected, of the Incumbents in their parishes. The funds required for this purpose must be raised, I fear, exclusively from the Church; and for this purpose I would recommend, that all fines upon the renewal of leases of Church property should be abolished, and that the estates should be let, not for lives, but for terms of years, at the best rents that under the circumstances can be obtained; that all bishoprics above a certain value should pay a large sum per cent. on the surplus; that all dignities requiring residence should pay ten per cent., and all dignities not requiring residence, twenty-five per cent. of their annual income, besides the obligation of making an adequate provision for the Incumbent of the parish out of which the income arises; that all livings between 250l. and 500l. shall pay two per cent., between 500l. and 1,000l. five per cent., and above 1,000l. ten per cent.; and that, in consideration of these contributions, the payment of first-fruits, tenths, and fees at visitations, should in all cases cease, and be abolished. I would place the funds thus to be raised, under the administration of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, who should make annual returns to Parliament, and, who should apply the funds under their management to the improvement of the bishoprics certified under a certain value, and of all parochial benefices under 250l.: and the relief should be administered in annual pensions, not in large sums, except for the purchase of leases of ecclesiastical estates, for the building or purchase of ecclesiastical houses, or in encouragement of donations for the improvement of small livings. I would augment this fund by permitting the sale of all manorial rights belonging to the Church; and I would not object to the alienation of the patronage of small livings in the gift of the Crown or the Church, upon the condition of their immediate augmentation. I would restrict pluralities of benefices, if it were possible, altogether; at least of all benefices exceeding a certain value: and I would further the erection of parsonage-houses, by not allowing the Incumbent to receive more than a certain portion of the profits of the benefice, till a house, or a sum equal to the purchase or erection of a house, should be provided; and in no case should I object to the alienation of tithe, especially of small tithes, in exchange for glebe of adequate value; and I should rejoice in facilitating the means, and reducing the expense, of such exchanges. I need hardly to mention my cordial desire of the immediate renewal of the Bill for the permanent composition for tithes.

I have already occupied too much of your pages to enter into a detailed view of the advantages which I contemplate from these and some similar improvements in the appropriation of the revenues of the Church. They have long been familiar to my mind, and

proceed not from any panic, arising out of the present crisis. The best security of Churchmen is to admit the improvements which reason requires and religion approves, and to leave the issue, with earnest prayer, to the blessing of GOD.

MONTHLY REGISTER.

NATIONAL SOCIETY.

HURRICANE AT BARBADOS.