State to provide for the religious and moral guidance of so large a body of its subjects? We might wish-if visionary wishes were worth indulging that we could supply it for all from the one pure fountain of our own sanctuary-that the Hindoos and Mahomedans of our Eastern world were Christians-that there were no Presbyterians in Scotland, and no Roman Catholics in Ireland, Malta, and Canadathat the British empire, in short, were a religious Utopia: but it is not so, and cannot be made so; and it is our destiny and our duty to deal with a different state of things, and to employ the means in our hands for purposes within our reach. But it is said that the guides that we propose to pay, entertain and teach certain doctrinal errors which the State should on the contrary discountenance. We will not enter upon these doctrinal points, on which seven-eighths of Christendom would be against us ;-but we ask again, are any other guides possible? Have we even the extreme alternative of these or none? We have not. These we have, and these we must continue to have; and surely the lower any one may rate the actual fitness of these inevitable functionaries for their important duties, the stronger should be the desire to see them elevated in the scale of intelligence and respectability. The Duke of Cambridge in the Maynooth debate put the case in a short and cogent form- If you want good scholars, you must have good teachers.'

Clearly then, the nation that endows is to have no conscience, or sense of difference between truth and error. Nor is it less clear that the parties accepting the endowment are expected soon to have no conscience either. Thus, in dealing with the objection arising out of the alleged aversion of the Irish priests to accept of an endowment, the reviewer mainly relies on the witty and worldly argument of the late canon of St. Paul's, (Sydney Smith) which, but for his excellent fooling, would be really nothing more or less than an unblushing avowal of a design to make men relinquish what they deem real scruples of conscience, by a sordid appeal, not to their reason, but to their pockets. The somewhat profane levity of the reverend jester, our contemporary quotes with marked complacency, characterizing it as arising from a shrewd estimate of human nature in general." And, indeed, his great plea is, that the sum required will be comparatively trifling; and that it will go far in the way of

"Hush-money, Mr. O'Connell may call it. And if it were hushmoney, would it not be well applied?-but in fact it is in no other sense hush-money than that the diffusion of liberal education and personal comfort may naturally be expected to explain misunderstandings -assuage animosities-promote mutual charity, and tend to the peace and prosperity of our common country."

"Liberal education and personal comfort!" It is decent to combine the two; but it is manifestly on the influence of the latter that the reviewer lays his chief stress. His whole reason

ing we repeat, is founded on the appeal to the pocket. See, he says to the British public, how little this scheme will cost you

less than the auction duty--only half what it cost you to abolish slavery; and if you doubt how far your friends in the Irish priesthood may think it right or lawful to accept your boon, trust, he slily adds, to "a shrewd estimate of human nature," and the effect of "personal comfort." Scruple or not, with or without conscience, rely on their clutching the bribe, sooner or later, and being all the quieter for it.

"Our first observation is, that the celibacy of the Roman Catholic clergy makes so essential a difference between them and the Protestant clergy in domestic expense, ** and that Lord Francis's scale ought to be quite satisfactory.* It is very nearly twice as much as is allowed to the Roman Catholic hierarchy of France.

We should wish, however, to see some slight amendments on his scale for instance, some distinction might be made in the incomes of the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin-for the first, on account of his primacy; for the latter, of the more expensive residence in the capital; and so we think the bishops of Cork and Down-the latter residing in Belfast-should have something more than the bishops of less expensive dioceses. In one report of Lord Francis's speech his estimate for deaneries is stated at £400, and in another at £300; we should adopt these sums as the extremes, and allot them to two classes of deans. With regard to the parish priests and curates, we see that the actual number exceeds by about 150 his calculation: that would make an addition of from £10,000 to £15,000.

"These additions would perhaps be covered by his Lordship's original estimate of £250,000: but suppose that the whole expense were to amount in round numbers to £300,000, it falls short by a fourth of £400,000, the sum proposed by Sydney Smith, who probably had not looked accurately at the numbers; and we are satisfied that Mr. Goulburn would still say, in 1846 as he did in 1825, that, if the measure could be shown to be a beneficial one, the sum itself was not of sufficient importance to impede it.' It is curious and not unimportant to observe, that even the extreme sum of £300,000 is exactly the amount remitted this session in the Auction Duty! and we may add that the value, even at the present high prices, of the annuity of £300,000 would be ten millions-half the amount that we were willing to pay for effecting the slave emancipation of our West

In different reports of Lord Francis's speech, there are discrepancies in the items, but he stated the total amount at a round sum of £250,000.

India islands. We presume we need not insult the feelings and understandings of the country with one word more on the objection of finance-Oh, what an economical and profitable expense that would

be!

"But suppose it passed-wouldt he priesthood accept it? We believe they would-and immediately-if presented to them, as we trust it would be, in a way not to compromise in any degree either their personal independence or their religious liberty. The State of course would be entitled, and indeed bound, to demand sufficient securities for the fitness of the person, and the due execution of the duty, such as the Roman Catholics of Ireland have already offered, and such as the Church of Rome concedes to all other-even Protestant-sovereigns. The Government can desire no unworthy influence over the Roman Catholic clergy, but on the other hand it cannot submit that the Crown of England should be treated with a less respectful and honourable confidence than other Protestant States. As the Government would probably make no new demand whatsoever, and be content with such regulations as are already conceded to other powers, these and such like mere points of business might, we presume, be arranged without creating scruples in any sincere mind. But we doubt whether it would be expedient to embarrass the individual members of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy by asking their previous assent to the arrangement;-it should be treated, not as a matter of negotiation between parties, but as the authoritative execution of a great administrative duty on the part of the Government- —a provision which the parties might take or leave as they should think proper. The best way perhaps would be to grant the sum in general terms, on certain general conditions, to such of the clergy as should be entitled and willing to accept it, with perhaps the specification of the classes of clergy-archbishops, bishops, deans, priests, and curates-to whom it was to apply, and fixing the maximum and minimum of each class; but in all other respects leaving the details to be adjusted by Her Majesty or the Lord-Lieutenant in council;-but with two provisos— that any increase of the numbers should be defrayed out of the original sum by a proportionable deduction from the class in which the increase is made;—and that in case any individual clergyman should at any time decline to receive the allotted stipend, the same should be paid to the fund of Charitable Bequests, and employed either towards a specific endowment for the particular diocese or parish filled by the person so declining, or for general purposes, as might be thought most expedient-permitting always the party to withdraw his refusal, and to receive the stipend for the current, and, if due, one antecedent year."

Thus all is cut and dry; the salaries and stipends are all duly calculated; the exact gradation-from his grace the " primate," down through the deans, vibrating between £300 and £400, to the poor priest or curate "passing rich" upon his £60-is adjusted to a nicety: "personal independence and religious liberty" are secured,—the very idea of the State attaching conditions, or

desiring" an unworthy influence," being repudiated with indignation, (are they to have what was declared to be intolerable in Scotland, state-pay without state-control?)—and the giving in of scrupulous and squeamish consciences, with an eye to "personal comfort," is anticipated from year to year. All is conceded, save "the Crown and Great Seal" to the Laity, and seats in the House of Lords to the Bishops. And yet even as to this last reservation, there is an "if"-which is, as usual, "a great peacemaker;" and for the sake of that perfect equality between Anglicans and Romanists in Ireland, which is to be the panacea for all its disorders, the reviewer would almost relent in favour of the excluded Prelates, could they but consent to make some slight concessions, as to patronage and the Queen's supremacy, (p. 294.) He has the entire scheme in his eye; and almost sees, in bright perspective, the whole Irish priesthood tamed, and Dr. M'Hale kissing hands at Court, on the issuing of a Royal congé d' élire in his favour, and a call to don his ample sleeves of lawn among the Princes and Peers of England.

Such is Conservatism; and such the friendly and equal alliance it would make between the two Episcopal and sister Churches. For" depend upon it," says our Sir Oracle--and "when he opes his mouth, let no dog bark".

"Depend upon it, that this is, to the Romish and the Protestant Church, a common cause. Establishments strengthen establishments; endowment supports endowment; and we are firmly convinced that the most protective laws which the most favouring legislature could devise to guard the Protestant Church in Ireland, would be weak and ineffective in comparison with such a recognition and establishment of the Roman Church as we advocate. As surely as we may confide in the scriptural axiom that 'wisdom is a defence and money is a defence,' so surely will this joint application of money and wisdom be a defence to the Established Church."

But if equality be the order of the day, there are two ways of getting at it. The Conservative reviewer has one scheme; a Liberal Churchman has proposed another.

The Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel stands very much alone, we fear, in the Established Church of England; and it seems to be too generally the understood rule among many of his brethren to represent any opinion of his verging towards liberal views as an anomaly and extravagance, which sound churchmanship will scarcely condescend to answer. It is not our province to vindicate the position of that distinguished man; nor need we say that he always reasons or acts with perfect consistency. In the pamphlet before us, we have noticed a few inaccuracies of reasoning, which are comparatively unimportant; but the noble

and generous strain of the whole is beyond all praise. Mr. Noel writes with a hearty and fearless honesty of purpose, which exposes him to the captious cavils of small critics, but which, in our opinion, would be ill exchanged for more measured and timid caution. He is no admirer of Popery; in one passage of surpassing eloquence, he denounces its spiritual usurpations and social corruptions and crimes. He is no soft and gentle opponent of the scheme for endowing it; he threatens action in right good earnest, and with a vehemence that might startle the mild apologists of Rome in the British Cabinet and Senate. But, on the other hand, he deals in no indiscriminate abuse of the Premier, for the difficulties of whose position he makes full and frank allowance; and so far from harbouring any bitterness or jealous suspicion in reference to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, his whole heart overflows with sympathy. We shall take an extract or two, from the first part of his letter to the Bishop of Cashel, as an illustration of his spirit.

After enumerating the penal statutes against the Roman Catholics, now happily repealed, but repealed too late for Britain's honour and Ireland's peace, he thus proceeds to speak of the Maynooth endowment:

"For myself, could I overcome my religious objections to it, I should heartily rejoice in this grant as the pledge given by a Conservative Government that they mean to legislate for the Catholics in a just and liberal spirit. Than this, nothing can be more necessary for the peace of the empire. And for leading the great Conservative party to a sense of this duty, Sir Robert Peel deserves the thanks of his country. Let us not blind our eyes to the difficulties of the Government. Noble as the task may be which is committed to their sagacity and firmness, it is yet most arduous. To conciliate millions embittered by long years of mis-rule, to obliterate the memory of wrongs which have made the very name of Saxon England odious to them, to conquer by kindness those who hate us, and to make those who now impatiently endure their connexion with us as a hateful yoke, identify it with their freedom, esteem it to be their glory, and associate it with all their aspirations after national greatness and prosperity, is no easy task and if Sir Robert Peel has made an attempt to fulfil this great duty, religious men, ought, as I think, to applaud the design, and support with ready zeal every well-principled measure which may lead to its accomplishment. The importance of this design, felt by statesmen of every party, has carried the Maynooth Bill through Parliament by such large majorities. Nor should we, who have opposed this measure, speak with unmixed severity of the votes even of religious men in its favour. I believe that they have greatly erred; and they chiefly are responsible to God, for a grant in support of doctrines totally opposed to the gospel of Christ, because their unanimous opposition would probably have been fatal to it. But they were under