On this subject we quote a correspondent's letter, well qualified to judge of this matter.

'I will close this communication with a few remarks on the parochial assessment for the repairs of the highways. I consider that the Clergy are heavily and unduly burdened in this respect. The old law provided for the repairs of parish highways, first, by what was called "the statute labour," and secondly, by an assessment; but this latter was not to be resorted to until the former was exhausted. The principle of the law was this, that the highway should be repaired by those who most used and injured it. Thus the parties who kept the greater number of waggons, carts, or other vehicles, as well as horses, were called on to contribute a quantum of "work" in proportion to the number kept, and a due proportion of manual labour was also provided for. Whatever may have been the merits or demerits of this law, it is plain that its repeal and the substitution in its place of the assessment system, solely added to the burdens of the clergyman. As soon as composition came into general use, waggons were little if at all needed by him, and the Tithe Commutation Act set the seal of its authority on their discontinuance as regarded tithe-gathering: so that to him the new law largely increased his payments. Under the operation of the old law, he would have been released from any large contribution to the "statute labour," whilst now, he is, if not the largest, one of the largest contributors. Again, the farmers practically pay half their assessment to the highway-rate in kind, employing their carts and horses in the conveyance of material, in the profits of which cart labour the clergyman does not participate. The result of my observations also leads me to the conclusion, that much more money is laid out in this way in country parishes, in proportion to that expended in manual labour, than is required or than is laid out on turnpike-roads repaired on different principles.'

Many indeed are the plans by which a clergyman's income is made to endure more than its fair share of parochial burdens. The highway rate is often 5 per cent., and in one case before us, 8 per cent., on tithe rent-charge. One clergyman we know of, whose use of highways is almost confined to pedestrian visitations through his parish, has to pay no less than 697. for the luxury of seeing other people's corn go to market, and of seeing the neighbouring gentry drive about in handsome equipages, who pay only to the expense of the roads on the assessment of an ordinary dwelling-house.

It is almost depressing, and may strike some as even querulous, to be enlarging our catalogue of burdens; but we are engaged in a stern matter of business, and must duly complete it. Land-tax is a serious item, amounting often to twenty or thirty pounds. Where this payment was taken into account, at the time of the commutation, perhaps no complaint ought now to be made; but the terms then agreed upon have no power to restrain, in defence of the Church, any increased demands of the land-tax which may since have been made.

During the last few years, a very general re-adjustment of this tax has taken place, (on the appeal of various owners who have imagined their property overtaxed,) the result of which

has often been, the increase of this tax on rent-charge from a very trifling sum to a serious and important charge. We know of one case, where an estate was bought very cheap, on the express ground of its being subject to a heavy landtax. The purchaser afterwards appealed, and eventually succeeded in having the land-tax of his parish wholly re-arranged, one result of which happened to be that the rector, whose commutation was made irrespective of any serious payment under this head, found himself muleted to the extent of 337. per annum. Many clergymen, in addition to the varied taxes we have enumerated, suffer much from unjust arrangements made in times past under the name of composition of tithe. Moduses, to a very trifling amount, are all that is received for land whose rental would now be of considerable value. Then also there are other compulsory deductions on income, which we should be sorry to see classed altogether as burdens, inasmuch as they are connected with the primary object and use of all tithes ; those, we mean, connected with the discharge of the duties of the church and the repairs of the chancel.

We have now considered the ecclesiastical and the parochial, i.e. the cavalry and the infantry, of that hostile army which a clergyman's income has to encounter. There remains the

artillery of the Queen's taxes, which apply to him in common with others. Income tax, moreover, falls on him with peculiar force, because the deductions which we have shown to exist on a clergyman's income, themselves repeated income-taxes, are by no means amply allowed for, and thus he is compelled to pay on what he never receives. House-tax is charged on the parsonage as rigorously as on other dwellings; and Mr. Heyworth (according to a notice given the first day of this session) even desires to make him pay succession duty, a monstrous idea, the bare mention of which, under existing circumstances, will, we trust, turn out the providential means of deliverance from the injustice we have exposed. The stamp alone for presentation is often 201., and surely this is succession duty enough. If more charges are added, it will be a hard matter to find a man rich enough to accept the smaller livings of our Church, which are in the hands of public patrons, encumbered as they are with increased duties, at which we rejoice, but with increased burdens, which we deplore. The poor but deserving student would thus be excluded more than ever from the Church, while the power of wealth would be more and more dominant, in secularizing the position of an incumbent.

Other taxes which the Clergy pay in common with all her Majesty's subjects, do not come within the province of our review to discuss. We have shown how heavy are the burdens

peculiar to the Clergy; and let those who only pay rates and taxes according to an ordinary and fair assessment consider how sad their complaints would be, if, in addition to these, they were exposed to that army of oppression which directs its peculiar aim against the country home of the English parson, or rather, against the stability and ecclesiastical freedom itself of the English parish church, so long the happy and proud possession of our country.

In our relation of grievances, we have purposely omitted to give any distinct place to the working of the Commutation Act itself, by which tithes are now regulated. That act was an arrangement between the payers and receivers of tithes, in which both parties were supposed to be consulted, and both had the power of appeal. The bargain was made, and therefore it is too late in the day to complain of its results, still less of the violation of principle which it involves. Considering, also, the political feelings of the time when this act was passed, the Church has much cause of thankfulness that she came off, in pecuniary matters, as well as she did in the struggle-for there were many at the time who apprehended worse things. Yet, although willing to keep strictly to our bargain, we certainly have a right to plead the present working of that measure as a very strong ground for the greatest consideration being shown towards the Church in subsequent legislation. The present value of rent-charge is 10 per cent. below the commutation, which may be accounted for in the very words of a correspondent whom we have before quoted:

The payment of the Clergy, prior to the operation of that enactment, represented a portion of the value of all the products of the farmer's industry, of corn, of hay, of cattle, sheep, wool, coppice-wood, potatoes, turnips, small seeds, &c.; and where the custom of compounding for tithe was prevalent, the amount of composition rose or fell as rents varied, or (which on an average of years would amount to the same thing practically) as the price of the various productions of the land was raised or depressed.

But the commodities being many, had a greater tendency to, and more truly represented, an equilibrium of value than would one or a few. Often it happened that when one fell another rose, and vice versa. But the Tithe Commutation Act fixed the amount of payment henceforth on the price of corn alone; at once creating a new estimate of value of the whole of the vicarial tithe of England and Wales, and sweeping away all consideration of the market value of those very commodities which had been the measure of the Church's dues. Then came the abrogation of the Corn Laws, and with it the fall of the clergyman's income of 10 per cent.; whereas, if the averages had been taken on the aggregate value of all the hitherto titheable property, the fall would have been very inconsiderable on vicarial tithe rent-charge.'

The case may be thus briefly stated:-Legislation, in the first place, singled out corn as the standard of clerical income, and then took special measures-right enough in themselves,

but injurious to this special interest-for the lowering of this standard by the introduction of free trade in corn. In the case of the farmer, the lowered price of corn is amply compensated for by the increased production which high farming of the present day enables him to effect. The clergyman, however, has no longer any interest in the amount of produce; his income is regulated solely by the price, to keep down which is the anxious care of all statesmen who wish well to their country.

Thus far we have considered those drawbacks on a clergyman's income which are compulsory, and which more properly come under the title of fiscal burdens. But there are others which are equally heavy, though of a more voluntary nature; and are the more to be déplored, inasmuch as they are most severely felt by the best men, by those who undertake the toral charge with an earnest sense of the responsibility thereby incurred, and with a deep anxiety to fulfil the work entrusted to them.

pas

In the first place, where the parish is of any size, there is the expense of providing the assistance of fellow-labourers. Nor can it be said that curates exact more than is their right, and that this burden ought to be reduced in its amount. We would rather suggest that a system should be adopted by which an incumbent might boldly appeal to the laity of his parish to pay the expense of such assistance, where he feels that he can justly do so, and that he enjoys no larger income himself than is requisite for a man in his position, and for the discharge of his other duties. In many places this is already done, but we think the principle might be more extended. An incumbent might fairly say, on entering a parish, that he can only do a certain amount of work, although more than that is required by the necessities of the parish; that his own income will not allow the expenses; and, therefore, as the good of the parish is their common work, the laity must subscribe in order to enable their pastor to carry out his plans. If this be thought too near an approach to the voluntary system, let the existing societies for the provision of curates be more amply supported than they are, in order that the more urgent cases may meet with prompt and certain redress. Either in a direct form, or through the agency of a society, we think that this special work of providing curates in parishes, where the need is great and the incumbent's income insufficient, is one which requires to be put more directly beforethe laity than at present, amid the various calls of charity, is generally the case. Let it be understood, that unless funds are forthcoming for the payment of additional labourers, that the clerical service of the parish must necessarily be limited to the work of one man, in cases, that is, where the endowment of

the church is not greater than is plainly requisite for his own

single support.

Then comes the well-known and still wider diffused burden, as concerns rural parishes, of schools for the poor. We sincerely hope that some arrangements will be made, by which the expense of parochial schools will be more equally borne than at present. It is surely hard that the wages of agricultural labourers should be avowedly too low to admit of any self-supporting system of education for their benefit, and that neither the state nor the voluntary contributions of the great body of parishioners should make up the deficiency. The children must either be brought up as heathens, or the clergyman must, in almost the majority of cases, do all himself, at a very large annual expenditure. We cannot imagine that when the House of Commons is discussing the question of national education, it at all realizes the extent to which the present education of the country rests, for pecuniary support and for personal superintendence, on the Clergy of the Church. If that education is imperfect, yet what it does effect is often at the sole expense of the clergyman. If the Church is usurping a large share of power in the matter of education, and is thereby exciting the jealousy of other religious bodies, it is quite unnecessary to talk of priestcraft; for that power can be accounted for on simpler, and indeed on strict commercial principles. It is paid for to the last farthing by the Church, which receives in return nothing beyond that unavoidable influence, which a pecuniary venture in any undertaking naturally returns to those who lay down their money. If the laity want influence on this subject, let them pay their money, and they will easily get it by a mutual understanding, too gladly entered into by the Clergy as a body. As long, however, as the clergyman has all to pay, it is certainly to be expected that he will claim a large share in the management of his school. For objects such as these the poorer clergy can fairly and reasonably solicit local aid with special boldness; and we fear that a certain shyness in asking for money from immediate neighbours, has led to great mischief in the imperfect discharge of duties undertaken. Where an expense rightly and justly falls on the parishioners generally, they ought constantly to be reminded of it; and although a clergyman may be commended for his patient endurance of a burden not fairly his own, yet we think that much harm has been done by the tendency of individuals to undertake, in a moment of enthusiasm, a greater burden than they find themselves able to endure, when it afterwards assumes the form of an annual deduction from income. There is always more chance of permanency where any charge rests on those who are really most responsible for it. A principle is