account hereafter as they may. For all others, the time is come to speak boldly, plainly, and truly, without any regard to consequences. For it is not fitting that such a church as this should fall, if she is to fall, without leaving behind her a solemn and earnest protest against the injustice and violence with which her fall has been effected,-without exposure of the base arts which have paved the way for that injusticewithout solemn warning of the evils which will be the consequence of removing the light of God's church from the land.

The warmest wish, indeed, which one interested for the honour and character of the church could form, in a crisis like this, when principles and foundations are at stake, would be, that every body of persons connected with her, should, without violence indeed or anger, but without "fear or favour," without any regard to personal consequences, without any consideration, in short, other than the consideration of what is right, and true, and sacred, leave a memorial of their opinions and feelings, a record of their opposition to evil, which might form a part of the proud history of the church, and shew that the prayer "that there never may be wanting a supply of men fit and able to serve God in the church," has not been sent up in vain. Past history tells us, that, notwithstanding the base slanders of base men, churchmen never yet have been afraid to oppose power when exerted for evil; and let not future history record that with a longer experience of the blessings of our own church, with the clear and firm demonstration of its advantages to the country, we alone, of this age, were wanting-unwilling to follow the example of them that are gone before us, like them to speak boldly, and like them patiently to suffer.

From these higher considerations let us descend to look again, for a few minutes, at the details of the dreadful measure now in agitation. And first let it be observed, that if the proofs afforded in the last number, that this is not intended as a measure for Ireland alone, were not sufficient, one thing which has occurred within these few days, would prove clearly how things are. The Solicitor-General, in presenting the petitions of some Dissenters about Church-rates, said, that he hoped to see the time when these rates should be abolished in England as well as in Ireland, as he looked on them as a great hardship on Dissenters. Now, undoubtedly, there is no pledge here given; but when a great law officer of government-a man too, like Sir John Campbell, not violent nor rash, but thoughtful and penetrating—makes a declaration like this, they must be wilfully blind, indeed, who are blind to the fact, that if Government has not yet given a positive pledge in private to the Dissenters, they are paving the way for it, if they find that such a step would profit them.

Now what is the real state of the case as to Church-rates, as far as they relate to the repair of the fabric? Simply this, that the oldest law books in existence (one as early as A.D. 1268) state, that by the Common Law of England, the repair and rebuilding of the fabric of the church belongs to the parishioners. (See a very valuable work of Dr. Newland's, called "An Examination of Dr. Doyle's Evidence;" in which the fourfold division was fully canvassed. It was abridged, with some alterations, in Vol. I. of this Magazine,

pp. 602-605.) Now when from time immemorial a certain burthen has belonged to certain property; when, consequently, in every transaction respecting such property, that burthen has been considered and allowed for; on what principles, which are not subversive of law and justice alike, can the Legislature take off this burthen from the property on which it is incumbent, and arbitrarily impose it on another? And if law will not bear them out, will equity or the reason of the case? For whom are churches built, the clergy or the people? If for the people, in the name of common sense, why are the clergy to repair and rebuild them? If religion, indeed, is of no value to the country at large, certainly the country should not be put to any expense for it; but then let this be boldly stated, and the whole be swept away at once. But to crown all, can anything be more iniquitous and oppressive than the shape which this tax is to take? A benefice of 500l. per annum is to be taxed 357. per annum; and why? Simply because the ministry chuses it. This benefice may be so large in population as to compel the employing a curate, and to entail very heavy and necessary expenditure in subscriptions and private charity. It is certainly liable to land tax and other charges. But without regard to all this, 7 per cent is laid upon it! And even if the charge is not a particularly large one in extent, does any one mean to say that from four to five hundred a year (for land tax and some subscriptions fall on all livings) is such an exorbitant income, that its possessor, still liable to every public tax, either in the shape of Assessed Taxes, or of Income Tax, is to be plundered of five and thirty pounds in order to relieve the estates of the noblemen and gentlemen around him from a burden to which they are liable by the common law, and to which equity and common sense would make them liable if there were no law on the subject? Is there any one less able to spare five-and-thirty pounds than a person who is bound to maintain a respectable appearance, though without luxuries, and bring up a family decently on four or five hundred a year? It is very well for Lord Althorp, and men who are rolling in riches, to overlook the difficulties of a private clergyman, because they think that the cry of the country is with them at the moment, but this is a rank gross piece of injustice, and a very few months will produce plenty of declarations to that effect from others besides clergy. In fine, looking at the matter of private patronage, what answer can Lord A. give to the plain question

"The

Of course, it is needless to say that the Dissenting Journals go on just as usual on this and similar points. The fourfold division, that ten thousand times exposed falsehood, was the subject of a long article in the "Patriot" of March 20. These papers know that people get tired of contradicting-that men of decent feelings are ashamed of recurring for ever to the same point-and on this, they make their advantage. The writer means ere long to throw together his thoughts on Value of Falsehood;" and to illustrate the subject by references to the "Patriot," and other similar publications. Frederic of Prussia avowed to the emperor that he understood the subject. But his was child's play to the practices of the modern press. It may not be amiss to mention that in a series of papers published at Horsham, on Church Rates, the writer on the Dissenters' side stated unhesitatingly that the Dissenters were the largest party in England-and this, when they are now compelled to allow that they cannot claim more than 3 millions out of 14 millions. The replies on Church rates given at Horsham were very good indeed, and, if possible, some extracts shall be given.

asked in last month's Magazine? Why, if of two brothers the elder and richer buys an estate, and the poorer buys an advowson, should a burthen belonging by law to the estate of the rich man, be transferred, by a mere arbitrary and tyrannical exercise of power, to the advowson of the poor? To sport with clergy and their incomes and comfort is all very well, but, after a short time, it will be found that clergy and their property do not differ in nature from other men and other property; and that if a principle is introduced by which gross injustice is perpetrated in one, it will very soon, of necessity, be applied to the other. For example, by the common law, the repair of highways falls on the occupiers of land in the parish where they are. Why should not Lord A. take that off the noblemen and gentlemen of the country and lay it on the clergy, or the lawyers, or the fundholders? What then is to be said of a step, to which law, common sense, equity, and the reason of the case are alike opposed?

As to the confiscation of Chapter property, one is so utterly weary of arguing the exceeding advantages of such property, the unjust or stupid blunder of calling it sinecure, and therefore devoting it to destruction, that that subject shall not be dwelt upon just at present, further than to remind persons that the only ground on which Irish Chapters are to be dealt with, is, that there are to be no sinecures in the Church at all; or, in other words, that the English Deans and Chapters are to be sacrificed to the Moloch of Radicalism, whenever it is found necessary to propitiate that greedy and bloody deity.

The Address of the Irish Clergy speaks of another topic, which is well calculated to move the indignation of every man. Every parish where there has not been service for three years, is to be done away with as a Protestant parish. In many cases, there is no church in a parish and this parish, for that reason, and for the smallness of its revenues, forms part of an Union. Now, without a single inquiry as to the Protestant population which may be living in it, and attending the service of the Union church, this parish is to be cut off, and the income of the church, already too scanty in that quarter (an Union being formed principally for that reason), is to be further diminished, and all hopes whatever of the expansion or confirmation of Protestantism to be done away. These things are really of a nature which it is difficult to characterize, without assuming the language of a partisan-they must be done either in wantonness or ignorance, against which, in a few years or months, the very stones in the wall will cry out.

As to Lord Althorp's creation of property, in order to confiscate it, one really hardly knows whether to laugh at the absurdity of the notion, or to be indignant at the dishonesty of the act. To contend, that because the bishop cannot grant leases for more than twenty-one years, you create a fresh property by giving him a larger power, at the very moment that you own him to have a still superior power to that which you give, viz., the power of bringing the whole into the hands of the See, is so childish, that one can hardly stop to argue about it. With respect to the application of this precious principle, it was, if possible, more ridiculous and absurd than the principle itself! It was founded on an error so gross, that one could hardly have imagined that it could have

been committed. That error made Lord A.'s calculation of the value of Bishops' estates wrong by about four-fifths. But it is not worth while now to expose it (and the paragraph which did so, is accordingly cut out), as it appears from a Dublin paper this morning, that ministers have consented to renounce this error, and have promised a Committee, appointed by the church tenants, to take off the six years' purchase! "But this is passing strange" legislation! To do it to-day, and to be compelled to undo to-morrow! However, they will do as little as they can, for it seems, as was stated to this meeting, that they want money, and will therefore persevere in all parts of the Bill which do not involve these gross errors! And is this the real secret of the Church Bill? If so, this is really the most intolerable part of all!

Finally, it was purposed to say a few words about convocation, but time does not permit; and the subject deserves a longer notice. This only shall be said, that whatever be the strict law of the case, equity, decency, and custom alike say, that before arrangements are made which must have a very great effect on the efficacy of the church, as a religious body; before the clergy are taxed for objects not belonging to them, but to the country at large; before ten bishops are got rid of in order to seize their property for the public use, and before a large part of property of those who are left is seized likewise, the church ought to be consulted, and that if it is not consulted, equity and decency are defied, only because it is believed that they can be defied with safety, and that when force can act, it is not worth while to appeal to reason, or examine the justice and propriety of what is proposed to be done.

the

ECCLESIASTICAL INTELLIGENCE.

ORDINATIONS.

Bishop of Bristol, St. Margaret's Church, Westminster...

March 3.

Bishop of Hereford, Spring Garden Chapel, St. Martin's in the Fields, March 3. Bishop of Lincoln, Buckden

March 3.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough will hold his next half-yearly Ordination on Sunday, the 28th of April, in the Cathedral Church of Peterborough. All persons who intend to offer themselves as candidates for holy orders, must send their requisite papers to the Bishop, in packets weighing less than an ounce, on or before the 3rd of April.

The Bishop of Lincoln's next Ordination will be held at Buckden, on Trinity Sunday, the 2nd of June. Candidates are required to send their papers thither to his Lordship,

before the 20th of April.

Dawson, Francis

Digby, William

Lewis, Henry John

CLERICAL APPOINTMENTS.

Prebendary of Canterbury Cathedral.

Master of the Hospital of St. Oswald, near Worcester.
Chaplain to the Hospital of St. Oswald.

Maurice, J.P., Petersfield {A Surrogate for granting Marriage Licences in the Diocese

of Winchester.

Selwyn, William............ Prebendary of Ely.