thereby established which it is difficult to overthrow; whereas, when an individual is unjustly burdened, even by his own freeact and deed, we may feel sure that the time will come, sooner or later, when he will rebel against it and throw it overboard. The parochial education is undoubtedly chargeable on the property of a parish in some form or other; and a clergyman, even if he undertake it, is sure to do it badly for want of funds; while, in his well-meant liberality, he is only affording to others a good pretext for the neglect of an essential duty.

Besides, however, the large annual payments which a clergyman, who is anxious to make his machinery effective, is too, often compelled to submit to without any foreign aid, there are innumerable expenses which his daily visitation in the parish make him liable to at every point: clothing clubs and societies. of various kinds, lending libraries, children's school prizes, assistance to the sick and distressed (partly but by no means wholly defrayed by the offertory collections), and the general encouragement of every parochial undertaking and subscription in times of special need. Then, also, he must subscribe to diocesan or metropolitan societies, and be ready at the call of his friends to devote any amount of time, together with many personal expenses, to whatever religious projects may be started around him. All these expenses are trifling to a man of fortune, as are many of our Clergy; but the evil is, that so much is now, expected of the Clergy irrespective of their private means. The poorer clergy are thus excluded from benefices, or are only admitted in order to furnish those lamentable instances of poverty and hard struggling with adverse circumstances, which the Bishop of Oxford, at the recent meeting of the Clergy Provident Society, so touchingly described as having come within his knowledge, through the confidential and sorrowful communications of many an impoverished clergyman opening out his grief to his spiritual fathers.

But is there no hope of remedy for the unjust amount of taxation or of professional burdens, which at present fall on the Clergy? We cannot augur much from the tone of the House of Commons on matters which at all affect this question. Look to the debate on Church-rates. Sir William Clay has at last succeeded in obtaining a majority in the House of Commons in favour of their abolition. We do not apprehend, indeed, that his bill will at once become law; but it is high time that the working of such a measure should be seen in all its bearings. We are no advocates for the continuance. of Church-rates in London or large towns on their present footing; but, in the rural parish, where they have been willingly paid from time immemorial, we see but one result from their

sudden remission; the farmers would leave all repairs to the clergyman, who must either officiate in a ruin, or pay the expense of keeping up the fabric. There would be almost a legal hold on the clergyman to do this even against his will; for if the church fell down or became unfit for use, he would be unable to fulfil those duties which are the necessary conditions, on his part, of holding the benefice. His office would become a sinecure, and the revenues would, as a matter of course, be soon appropriated for some other purpose. We trust, therefore, that whatever measures are adopted on this difficult question, it will be foreseen that any plan, even such an one as the Archbishop of Canterbury's, which throws the repair of country churches, so long as the Church is connected with the State, on a voluntary system of rating, will in practice throw a very heavy burden on the income of the incumbent. These voluntary rates will, in a vast number of cases, be withheld on some pretext of this kind, till the incumbent must do all himself, or see his church in ruins. Such would not be the case universally; but there is little doubt that any relaxation of Church-rates would, in small country districts especially, have a very great tendency to increase the burdens on the Clergy, already, as we have shown, far too oppressive.

The popular remedy for the extreme poverty of a large portion of the Clergy, is a more equal distribution of Church property, which means a centralized system by which all Church property should be first collected together in a mass, and then re-divided on more equal terms than at present. It would be an evil day for the Church when this general ingathering of her property took place; for we doubt whether the distribution would at all answer the expectations of her members. Taking the Church property at its full value, the distribution, even if carried out without any expense in the operation, would not yield 2007. to each beneficed and unbeneficed clergyman. Apart, however, from this small average, it must be remembered that the extreme inequality, as well as the great amount of the various burdens we have enumerated, would be an insuperable barrier against any fair valuation of the Church's available income.

The gross value of ecclesiastical property is, indeed, no guide whatever to the results of any actual amount that could be made available for any system of equalization which might be attempted, since the enormous deductions which so greatly lessen the incomes of the majority of clergymen, entirely alter the whole basis on which any calculation can possibly be formed. Wholesale legislation on Church property, from estimations of its present gross value, without taking into consideration the various and varying burdens which rest on it, would be simple

spoliation, would defeat itself, and would produce confusion far greater than any which even at present exists.

Let it not, however, be supposed that we resist all interference with ecclesiastical income. On the contrary, we feel assured that the principle of non-interference is the great spoliating and secularizing agency of the present day: it is this which robs the Church of her available and working income, far more than any threatened invasion of her rights on the part of the State. The gradual lapsing of Church property into private property, resulting from the unrestrained traffic in livings now going on, is the great danger which we have now to apprehend; and this simoniacal dealing can only be the result of entire confidence in the money market, that vested interests in Church property are secure. Once shake this confidence-deal with the Church's property as it were bona fide, meant for the good of the Church, and not for the enrichment of individuals-show an intention of making such new arrangements as local circumstances pointed out to be advisable-and we shall not hear so much of those discreditable advertisements which exalt the comforts and degrade the office of a parish priest, in order to raise the market price of advowsons or next presentations.

Our object in all we have said has been to claim justice for the Church's property as such; and surely it is an essential addition to our remarks, that we should claim also greater elasticity in the application of that property to the real work of the Church. The open sale of livings as now conducted, should raise a blush in all who respect the spiritual claims of our Church. The whole system of work or discipline is cramped by the cold and rigid demands of pecuniary vested interests; and the religious uses of Church property, beyond a literal fulfilment of a few stated duties, are made to appear almost chimerical, if demanded by ecclesiastical authority. There is, then, a degree of security enjoyed by many individual holders of Church property, which is prejudicial to the interests of religion, and which amounts to secularization; but this is no argument for not protesting against unfair burdens on the Clergy generally. The Church ought to protect her property, not as belonging to individuals, but as being devoted to the best interests of religion, according to the varying claims and necessities of each generation of her children. It is preeminently for the interest of lay members that this true ideal should be maintained, for otherwise the pastor's office will degenerate in the active discharge of its work.

We observe then, on the one hand, a want of elasticity in the internal management of Church property, and we also observe a tendency from external sources to oppress individual

clergymen by unjust burdens; but a doubt occurs whether the latter evil can ever be remembered, till the public see that the former is also made the earnest subject of reform. It is this evil which is always thrown in the teeth of those whose work it is to solicit voluntary aid for the various objects and missions of the Church; it is this, in short, which both stimulates the unjust burdens we have been speaking of, and prohibits any fresh contributions, on a large scale, to relieve the distress of those clergy who unfortunately are not in possession of what are called the prizes of the Church, but who have drawn, in the lottery of life, what may very justly in many cases be called blanks in all that concerns the hire of a spiritual labourer in Christ's vineyard.

The great poverty which exists among very many of our Clergy is now universally acknowledged. Let, then, some bold and generous attempts be made to alleviate the burdens we complain of; let also such a hearty effort be shown, on the part of the heads of the Church, now allowed their right of synodal deliberation, to reform many existing abuses, as may lead the way to a better understanding between our rich laymen and the necessities of the National Church. In the sermon of the Bishop of Salisbury on the fast-day, there are a few remarks on this general subject, which we have reserved for the conclusion of our article, drawing particular attention to their final admonition:

They who thus worship and fall down before wealth, often indulge themselves with the most lavish prodigality in everything which can pamper the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life; and yet this same generation is better skilled in exercising a far stricter economy than their poorer fathers did, in everything which concerns the external circumstances of the Church, and the administration of any of her endowments. All justice, economy, and the reform of abuses, are most praiseworthy; but the coincidence I have mentioned is strange.'

Having now stated our case, we ask Mr. Heyworth and all who think with him, whether the endowments of the Church ought to be subjected to succession duty, in addition to the aggregate of unjust claims already enforced upon her property? The Clergy gave up to Parliament their original right of taxing themselves in their own Convocation. They did this with great generosity, throwing themselves for ever on the protection of the country, in order to facilitate public business; and now they have an undoubted claim for gentle treatment in all legislation that affects her interests. By this we do not mean that they must expect peculiar privileges, the time for those is gone by; but that common justice may be shown towards them, and that in any fresh legislative acts, some reparation of their wrongs should be effected, and their fiscal burdens placed on a footing of equality with those that effect other species of property. A calm and

temperate deliberation of these subjects, in ruridiaconal and diocesan synods, might, in some measure, help both to expose what is unjust, and to provide also the remedy. We commend the topic to their notice, and hope for some practical results.

We have spoken above of the expenses of episcopal and archidiaconal visitations as an especial burden on the Clergy. It may be objected that these charges are defrayed by the parish. Such, however, is not the case where there are no Church-rates; and the incumbents of all district parishes are forced to pay, not only their own expenses of synodals, but the bills which are presented by apparitors and other officials to the churchwardens. In these places the churchwardens are entirely without any other funds than what they subtract from the clergyman's income. We cannot believe that the Bishops are aware of the extent of these payments incidental to the ordinary visitations. We have before us the accounts paid by the churchwardens of a district church at an ordinary visitation. Here is a specimen for the year 1846:

Presentment fees

Churchwardens of

£ s. d.
1 3 4

For list of preachers.

For Proclamation and Form of Prayer for East
Indian victories in 1846

Dr. to

Apparitor: viz.

For notice of Confirmation in 1846, by order of
the Lord Bishop of

For ditto for Queen's safe delivery, 1846

For attending Confirmation in same year, by order
of the Lord Bishop of

For Proclamation and Form of Prayer for relief
from dearth and scarcity, &c.

0 2 6

£1 19 4

And similar, but smaller, payments are made annually at the Archdeacon's visitation. Now, we can hardly see why the incumbent of a poor Peel district has to pay six shillings a year to an apparitor, because very properly the Bishop holds annual Confirmations; nor, again, is it quite consistent with justice, that the parish priest has to pay to this apparitor half-a-crown for a single form of prayer, which can be bought at three shillings a hundred at the Queen's printers.