guarded church property, not alone, but in common with all property, with an almost religious awe, and preserved the most trifling prescriptive rights and payments in any transfers of property-not on a narrow, but a broad view-viz., that the structure of society, as it is, is built on the notion of the inviolability of property, and that conse. quently the idea of that inviolability must, for the good of society, be most carefully cherished. In the very few cases where a sort of physical necessity existed-i.e. excessive evil to be remedied, or exceeding advantages (as in the cases of canals, roads, &c., through private property) to be gained-for a departure from the principle, the caution, the difficulty, and the compensation shewed that this departure was an exception, not a rule. Now, by the efforts of church reformers, it seems probable that, in the case of church property, first, a departure from this principle will be recognised as the rule, and not the exception. A citizen, far more than a churchman, may bewail this, because a very little reflexion and knowledge of history will teach him the consequences, consequences which it is better to advert to, than to describe in detail. But, to come to a narrower ground, not the dangers to the country from touching any property, but the mischiefs to the church, from altering what belongs to that body, while any specific measures are not announced, it would be idle and unwise to enter into detail. This however should be said, that while every real friend of the church would, at all times, rejoice at any measures which should prevent accumulation of preferments, and would never wish for very large incomes for the clergy, they who intend not only that the establishment should be preserved, but that it should preserve its influence, must take care that sufficient incomes are left for the clergy to enable them, by their education, habits, and manners, to mix with the gentlemen of the country. It is very true that a party, which imagines itself friendly to the church, and which has usually shewn its friendship by endeavouring to introduce arbitrary measures, and to treat the clergy as if they were actuated by no motive but one, in its profound ignorance of mankind and society, refers to the Swiss, German, and Scotch clergy. Of the Scotch clergy every one must wish to speak with that respect which eminently belongs to them; but it is vain to contend that they have any influence; or that, except where their extraordinary attainments make their society a favour on their part, they are looked on as the proper companions of the higher classes. This is still more the case in Germany, where they are positively treated with contempt and contumely. They who have no influence with the rich will have much less influence with the poor. He, therefore, who has so little studied the structure of society in this country, as to suppose that, if he reduces the clergy to that condition that they cannot freely associate with the higher classes, they will retain their influence, cannot deserve that much time should be expended in arguing with him. The statesman must consider whether he thinks the influence of the clergy of any use-whether it is not always on the side of good order and tranquillity, and whether, even now, its being withdrawn would not materially lessen the chance of the country's remaining tranquil. They who profess a reverence for religion may consider also whether they would think it desirable, on religious grounds, that the rich and great should be exempted from the check, control, and influence of the society of a well-instructed and influential clergy; and whether they think that the entire degradation of the clergy will serve the cause of religion with the poor. These things are really worth patient consideration; though they will not receive it from those who wilfully or ignorantly confound one state of things with another, and represent the condition, the difficulties, and the zeal which belong to the missionary among savages, as the wise, and proper, and wholesome condition of things in a long settled state. It is hardly worth while perhaps to go further than to observe that, should any attempt be made, now or hereafter, to reduce the incomes of clergy below a certain point, and yet to retain the establishment, the country ought to be prepared to make some large grants, for every one who inquires about the clergy whom he knows, will find that an enormous quantity of private income is brought into the church, (which is thus maintained at a much cheaper rate than it could otherwise be,) and that assuredly fathers, who can leave incomes to their sons, will not bring up their children (speaking generally) to a profession which holds out no prospects to them. The facts in the case of the dissenters prove this sufficiently. There are plenty of monied men among them. But who among these brings up his son to the ministry ?* But it is necessary to go on and say a few words more on another part of this subject. The writer has always abstained from all party reflexions on the late ministry in treating of church matters, and has done so on principle. And certainly the same principles will actuate him now. But it is due to the heads of the church and the clergy to say, that, at least, it is not their fault that, on several points, such changes as wisdom and principle would permit and suggest were not made long ago. Let it be remembered that a Tithe Bill, which (with perhaps some improvement in its machinery) would have entirely relieved every one who felt aggrieved by the uncertainty of his payments to the clergy, and might have been the basis of any further measures, was actually brought in by the church. Why was it rejected by the House of Commons? No one can doubt that it was rejected because it was clearly seen by the enemies of the church both in and out of that house that it would have put an end to the cry against the church on that point. Again, the Heads of the church introduced a Bill to restrain Pluralities, which passed the Lords, and was introduced to the House of Commons, where considerable amendments were to be proposed, carrying the restrictions still farther than in the original bill. Strange to say, a time for reading this bill a second time could never be found! With all the ardour for church reform, a time could not be found or made to entertain the project of the church to remove any causes of complaint against itself! Dr. Lushington, to whom the bill was entrusted, used, it is to be presumed, all diligence to obtain a second reading, but time was never obtained. Now, can any one doubt that, had there been a proper feeling on the subject, a measure thus proposed would have been entertained? Can • The writer knows one person of private income, who was a dissenting minister, but he has retired, and has openly expressed dissatisfaction at much among them. any one doubt that it was not carried because it was clearly seen by the enemies of the church, that as to pluralities also, this measure would have stilled all clamour, would have done away what was really objectionable, and would have satisfied every reasonable man? Since that time, as the Bishop of Exeter most justly states, as the government announced every year in the King's speech that they were about to introduce measures of church reform, they prevented all possibility of the church's moving on its own behalf, and yet they failed to introduce any measures, or rather abandoned what they did propose. Even Lord Althorp's second Tithe Bill wanted so much more consideration that it was impossible to carry it; and probably most reasonable people who know the complicated forms in which old property exists, will see that an enabling act is the only method of proceeding; that it would be most difficult to frame a compulsory act, and probably, even after very long consideration, impossible to do so without gross injustice. An enabling bill, giving a choice of means of changing the form of tithe property, would do all that is required. Of Lord Brougham's Residence and Pluralities Bills, it can hardly be necessary to speak seriously as measures ever intended to be carried, for the simple reason that the greater part of them were rank absurdity, and (as it is understood) the fruit of a confused mixture of two separate projects by different persons which almost contradicted one another. It is painful to remember, that one who could have done so much service to a good cause as Lord Brougham, should have shewn such an animus towards the clergy and church as those bills displayed (which was indeed all that they did), and that he should have made so publicly a declaration as to his intentions of leaving small patronage in the hands of the bishops without adhering to it. Lord Brougham is doubtless aware ere this (in some cases from public proceedings) that he would have done far better for the church and his own credit, as to several of these appointments, if he had so adhered to it. As to the grievances, it has already been stated over and over again that (as the Bishop of Lincoln remarks) the clergy make no difficulties as to registration and marriages, whatever they may think (for no selfish reasons) of the expediency of the matter; and as to church rates, as the new premier has intimated his approbation of the principle of the late bill, some measure, it is to be presumed, of that kind, will be brought forward, free at least from the clumsy and impracticable machinery which disgraced the last. The writer's own belief is unchanged, that a simple enactment pointing out the means of recovering the necessary rates would have been sufficient, even a short time back, especially if Dr. D'Oyly's suggestion that the rate should cover only things necessary for public worship. But after all the clamour on part of churchmen for reform, it will be something to maintain the principle of a national maintenance of the national worship, although the church is robbed of so large a portion of what belongs to it. With respect to the universities, the premier's declaration will give satisfaction to all reasonable men. Let our universities remain to us; let the dissenters have their own colleges ; and let the great authorities in law and medicine give to character and competency among the dissenters, established by what proofs they judge necessary, what they have given to character and competency established by an academical degree. It is necessary, in conclusion, to call the attention of all Englishmen to the fact that dissent is becoming daily more and more merely political, and that, unless very narrowly watched, its organization will enable comparatively small numbers to produce effects perfectly inconsistent with all good government. Let the address signed by a Mr. Waymouth, in the last number, calling on all dissenters to oppose the new government-i. e., calling on a body whose only point of union is religion, to bond together for factious political purposes-be duly considered; and let that signed by Mr. Wilson, which calls on all dissenters to come forward as one man in the ensuing elections, be well weighed also. If there is one thing more dangerous to the peace of a country than another, it is political faction founded on religion; and this is precisely what the dissenters are now labouring to build up among us, under the pretence of getting redress of certain alleged grievances. A pretext there must of course always be; but they who shut their eyes to the fact that this is a mere pretext must be blind indeed. As to Messrs. Wilson and Waymouth, they are probably respectable men who are mere tools, and whose names are put forward in order to allay suspicion; but there must be far more behind, and persons of a different character and order, directing and impelling all these proceedings.* It is necessary to add, on this point, that the Patriot, a religious paper, and the organ of the respectable dissenters, is far more rabid in its politics, and in its abuse of the new ministry, than any one of the radical papers. Most of them, indeed, write like advocates; the low and vulgar rage, and the personal abuse in the Patriot appear to come from the heart. This is really a serious matter, as it shews what is to be expected if such a party should ever attain more power than it has. It is pleasant to find the Wesleyans, with their usual good feeling, resisting these political schemes. The following letter is highly satisfactory : “SIB, — Some time ago I received a communication from the Secretary of the Committee of Protestant Dissenters, in Maidstone, requesting the Wesleyan Methodists to depute a number of their body, not exceeding five, to form, in conjunction with other persons so deputed, a committee for the consideration of subjects connected with the redress of the practical grievances of Dissenters. "Upon laying that communication before the trustees and leaders of the Wesleyan Society, in two separate meetings, the reply was, in substance, without hesitation, and unanimously-'It is no business of ours-politics do not belong to us-we are called to do all the good we can to the souls of men, and as a body, can take no part in political matters.' "To prevent the idea of Wesleyan Methodists having formed any part of the Committee which has published certain Resolutions in your paper of last week, is my reason for thus addressing you. "Brewer-street, Dec. 15th, 1834." "JOHN KERSHAW, Wesleyan Minister. [In addition to the above disclaimer by the Wesleyan Methodist body of any participation in the Resolutions published in our last, we are requested to state that several members of other congregations in this town do not coincide in the view taken of Dissenters' grievances in those Resolutions.-ED. Journal.] VOL. VII.-Jun. 1835. N |