that drunkenness presents the greatest of all hindrances, the most formidable of all barriers, to the reception of spiritual instruction, and the inlet of religious knowledge; the removal therefore of this hindrance and this barrier is a work not to be despised. The guarding and forefending of our uninfected neighbours, and especially our rising generation, from this moral plague, is a decided service rendered to the gospel; it is at least preparing the way of the Lord, and making straight in the desert a high-way for our God.'"

VISITING SOCIETIES.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

SIR,-Observing in your Journal of this month that a Visiting Society is about to be established at Oxford, I feel most anxious, through the same medium, to offer a few hints to those interested in the formation of it. Under judicious direction it will prove a blessing to the poor, but if entered upon without due consideration as to the possible effects, will be only productive of disappointment to the benevolent supporters of it, and very partial benefit to the objects of their kind intentions. I am a member of two district Societies, and my experience as visitor has led to this conclusion, that the systematic extension of relief has in the aggregate a decided tendency to injure the morals of the poor, in as much as it encourages idleness and profligacy. Unlooked for assistance is seldom otherwise than beneficial, but the certainty of relief which alleged poverty and distress, however produced, meets with, has nearly destroyed every feeling of the poor to support their families by labour. I have seen the greatest apparent misery decline proffered employment, from the knowledge that the hand of charity would be widely extended on relating a tale of woe.

Far be it from me to close the heart which is alive to the sufferings of real distress-there are cases, where but for the aid of charitable institutions deserving persons must perish. I would urge the most liberal subscriptions, but at the same time, it is of the utmost consequence that the money benevolently given should be judiciously applied.

I venture to suggest that two-thirds at least of any fund be expended in finding employment; needle-work should be supplied to the females, and on condition only of their earning a certain sum per week, and a small portion of that as savings deducted, should entitle them to the loan of linen during the period of their lying-in; peculiar cases of inability to fulfil the general regulation might form an exemption. A certain weekly allowance of money during that period is injudicious; it is then claimed as a right; but articles of food could be given at the discretion of the lady visiter.

Subscribers might have the privilege of sending linen to the Committee to be made by the women whose names were on the books of the Society, according to the following scale:—

The subscriber of 17. 1s. to be entitled to the amount of 15s. in needle work, and the privilege of recommending one sempstress. Those at 10s. to 7s. 6d., but no recommendation. At 5s. to 2s.

When work could not be thus obtained, common materials for clothing should be bought to be made by the females at a moderate price, to be purchased by them at the lowest possible amount, and the surplus offered for general sale. Shoemakers could be employed on similar principles, and means devised for employment of many trades.

I fear my letter is somewhat longer than can be admitted in your columns: should you find it inadmissible, I trust the subject will be noticed in a more concise form, and communication, if desired, be held by letter to any address given.

I remain,

Your constant reader,

X. Y. Z.

ON THE CATHOLIC MAGAZINE.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

SIR,-In your number for December you extract a few specimens of the temper of the Catholic Magazine, and wish for information respecting it; whether its "editors are priests?" and whether "any Romanists of family can tolerate such a production?" In reply to these queries, you will be surprised when I tell you, that this scurrilous publication is the accredited organ of the Roman priesthood in this island. The prospectus announcing its birth appeared in November, 1830; and was addressed "to the Catholic Clergy and Laity of the United Kingdom.' It bore the written approvals of two vicars apostolic, Drs. Walsh and Baines, with that of thirty-seven (afterwards increased to fifty-eight) priests, and these include every name of any note in their body. It was "to be conducted on a liberal and enlarged plan; that the utmost freedom of discussion be admitted, but that all asperity of language be excluded; and that a spirit of moderation, of candour, and forbearance, invariably pervade the work." Of their adherence to this, the passages adduced in the British Magazine are a beautiful specimen. The avowed editors were the following priests, viz. :- "the Rev. J. Kirk, Lichfield; Rev. F. Martyn, Walsall; Rev. E. Peach and T. M. M'Donnell, Birmingham; and the Rev. T. Gascoyne, St. Mary's College, Oscott; assisted by the clergy who attend the Oscott conference," &c. After such a muster of forces, something worthy the greatness of old Rome was fully expected. A more ridiculous failure has seldom occurred, even in the annals of literary periodical parade. However, what it wants in talent is abundantly made up by personal grossness and misrepresentation; worthy the general character of Mr. M'Donnell, who is known to be, in fact, its chief editor.

To your question whether "Romanists of family can tolerate such a work;" I should answer generally in the negative, for the last number of the Catholic Magazine complains grievously of "the disgraceful apathy of the upper classes of the Catholic body;" and reads them an edifying lecture upon the approaching downfal of the aristocracy. It is, of course, cordially disapproved by such gentlemen as the Hon. E. VOL. III.-Jan. 1833.

K

Petre, who nobly sustained the obligation of his oath not to injure the established church, for which he was arraigned by Mr. Shiel within, and by the Catholic Magazine without; for this Christian production has been constantly labouring (as for instance in the last number) to prove that Romanists are virtually absolved from any obligation to keep that oath. At the same time, there may be individuals of family, though I think not many, who resemble the Earl of Shrewsbury; whose feelings are evinced, as well by his cordial support of the worst productions of his party, as by his vehement attacks on the highest ranks of the English church, in the House of Lords, and upon its humblest members, in the persecution of a private curate, in his own parish.

I could give some striking details of the progress of this our inveterate enemy in the midland districts, and of its bearing upon public meetings; as, among the rest, the rejection of the church-rate at Birmingham, which is imputable solely to the machinations of that active mover of the political union, Mr. M'Donnell, who, in his proceedings, was deserted even by some of the most violent radicals. But I will only add, that the appearance of the Catholic Magazine led also in Birmingham to the publication of a counteracting periodical, the Protestant Journal, which, I regret to say, is likely to fall, for want of general support. Certainly, I wish the judgment manifested in it did as much honour to the zealous editor, as the typography does credit to the Birmingham press. However, its defects might have been remedied; but, when extinct, a vehicle will be closed for many valuable communications, and for much information respecting the progress of the never-slumbering foe of truth and freedom.*

The Editor cannot avoid saying a few words here respecting the Protestant Journal. Like L. V., he may not always coincide in opinion or judgment with the Editor. But he is bound to offer his tribute of respect and esteem to a man who by all accounts goes through labour the most severe, unremitting, and unrewarded, under every discouragement, simply and solely from a desire to serve the sacred cause in which he is embarked. The Editor has been informed that Mr. Allport is compelled frequently to work eighteen and nineteen hours a day with a most scanty and insufficient income, and with no payment for his learned and curious labours. It ought to be added that this indefatigable man published last year a translation of Davenant on the Colossians, with a most interesting and valuable life of Davenant, and many notes. Whether persons agree in Davenant's views or not, the value of his work is not doubtful; and it is with sincere regret that the Editor has learnt that Mr. Allport has suffered severely by this undertaking. He begs earnestly to recommend the work to those among his brethren who have the means of purchasing it, and thus assisting a most deserving and excellent man.

In conclusion, let the Editor call attention to the statement in this letter, that the Catholic Magazine, a work exceeded by none in virulence, coarseness, and vulgarity, is edited by priests and approved by their bishops. What a strange church is the Roman Catholic church! It might stand on its dignity, on its age, on the excellence and learning of its writers. But if the coarsest language, the most unchristian means, and union with all which it most detests and has always denounced, will serve the purpose of depressing an enemy, it never hesitates for a moment to adopt these dreadful and degrading means of warfare.

CURATES.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

MR. EDITOR,-The cause of pluralists has been advocated in your Magazine with all the ingenuity that the subject will admit of. Will you allow me to enter the lists, and with every feeling of personal respect to your correspondent (vol. i. p. 355.), to speak a word in behalf of curates? Now I wish to appeal to those stubborn things called facts, and from the Clerical Guide and Parliamentary Returns, as my authorities, beg to produce the following testimonies respecting the pluralists and curates in 1827. We there find that 12,200 pieces of preferment were possessed by 7659 persons, of whom 3801, or very nearly one half, held more than one preferment each. It farther appears that 390 of these last, who were also dignitaries of the church, held among them 1297 dignities and benefices, i. e. upwards of three each. The state of things cannot now be very different from what it was five years since, and may be assumed to be sufficiently near the truth at the present time. Come we now to the curates, and we learn from the parliamentary return in 1827 that there were at that time 4254. Add these to the number of incumbents, and we shall obtain 11,913 as a fair estimate of the number of parochial clergy required for the ministerial superintendence of the kingdom. This must remain nearly the same, whether these clergymen are incumbents or curates, and as this number must evidently be kept up, the suc cession, as far as I can see, must remain the same, whether pluralities are allowed or abolished. I believe, indeed, that in many cases, and particularly in our country parishes, the holder of two or more adjoining benefices with a small population might be enabled to advance the welfare of his people more than if the same preferments were divided among two or more incumbents, but it is in such cases alone that I would plead for their continuance. If it be asked, by way of defending pluralities, what can a clergyman do upon a pittance of 150l. a year?—I would reply, what can a curate do upon half that sum? I am sorry to observe that, notwithstanding, by Lord Harrowby's act, the minimum salary of curates is fixed at 80%. Out of 4254 stipends, of which a return was made to Parliament, 2375 were returned as below that sum, and only forty-three returned as receiving the whole proceeds of the benefice. And yet, Sir, in piety, talent, and education, and a faithful discharge of their important duties, I do not know that curates are in any way inferior to those who employ them. The Christian principle is this, that the labourer is worthy of his hire; and I cannot see how pluralities, to the extent that they now exist, can be reconciled upon this principle. At the same time, Sir, I would encourage no reckless innovations; I would act with becoming deference to the powers that be, and to whom, as ministers, we owe reverential obedience. At the same time, I would think it a duty both to them and the church at large to offer, in a spirit of Christian meekness, any suggestions which may tend, in my

opinion, to strengthen our Zion, by taking away from her enemies all just grounds of complaint against her. I remain, Mr. Editor,

December 7, 1832.

Your obedient servant,

G. W. R.*

G. W. R.'s letter is calculated to cause great concern. He wishes to say a word on behalf of curates. Why is any thing required on behalf of curates? Who wishes to ill-use them? Will he allow himself to be asked whether he really believes that incumbents are enemies to curates? Doubtless in a very large body there will be some ungenerous men ; but does he really believe, if he knows the state of the incumbents, that they are as a body inclined to withhold from their assistants what they can afford to give? Who are the incumbents? Some certainly went into the church with a certainty of provision. But how large a class is there who were for a longer or shorter season curates themselves, with no prospects before them, and receiving just what they now give, without thinking themselves ill used. Does G. W. R. believe that these men are enemies to curates, or require any one to speak in behalf of curates to them? Does he think that if he became a rector to-morrow, he should become ungenerous and oppressive to younger and more helpless men? The Editor must say, that having set out in life as a curate without any prospect, he shall always feel strong gratitude to the two incumbents under whom he served for their invariable kindness to him. And he heard only a few days ago of one of these cruel incumbents and pluralists, who by his situation in a cathedral had provided for two of these oppressed curates. These cases are the rule, and ill usage the exception. With respect to the facts, G. W. R. might remember that Lord Harrowby's act applies only to cases of non-resident rectors, and of those whose incumbency began subsequently to his act, while the returns of 1827, doubtless, embrace these two classes. Besides this, are curates the only persons to be considered? The Editor's near neighbours at one time were two clergymen above seventy years of age, whose infirmities prevented them from doing their duty,-one, indeed, was blind. Neither benefice amounted to 1801. per annum, and yet the population in each was considerable. Does G. W. R. think that it would be right that if these two men had gone to live with their friends and "die at home at last," nearly their whole income should have been given, in their hour of need and infirmity, to young men, perhaps, just ordained, who had never done a year's service to the church? Doubtless, the people as well as the old pastor are to be considered, but while frail and infirm men are to be employed in the church, the provisions of Lord Harrowby's act cannot be enforced strictly without cruelty, from which any but paper reformers would shrink. On the non-resident or pluralist, competently provided for, every one would wish to see them rigidly enforced.

With respect to the argument about pluralities alluded to, G. W. R. does not appear to understand it, and the Editor has found the same difficulty with many persons in conversation. No one denies that if every benefice was served by its incumbent, the same number of clergy would be required as now. But what was meant about the difficulty of getting a succession in that case was obviously this. Now as a curacy, from being temporary in duration as well as limited in amount, is not valuable, there is nothing painful or objectionable in any man's asking for one. And besides this, there is a constant demand for curates, by the change of circumstances in persons and benefices. Many men are ordained upon titles for two or three years, a period for which an incumbent happens to want assistance. But supposing such curacies were things unknown, would a man who had no friend ready to give him a living even when it was vacant, resolve on going into the church? How should he accomplish his object, if he did so resolve? There would be a few curates employed by resident rectors in large places, and the competition for these curacies would be such as to make them almost as difficult to obtain as a small living. Could a young and friendless man apply to the patron of even a small living, to whom he was unknown, and ask him for the reversion of it? Would the patron, even if inclined to listen to such applications, do right in promising preferment to one who might turn out unworthy and had then given no proof of his ministry? And finally, suppose all these difficulties over, and a promise even of an old man's living obtained, (old men live much longer than is expected,) what is to become of the expectant in the mean while? He could